From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Ferrara

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 10, 1972
469 F.2d 83 (9th Cir. 1972)

Summary

fining attorney for failure to prosecute appeal with due diligence pursuant to Rule 46(c)

Summary of this case from Gadda v. Ashcroft

Opinion

No. 71-3051.

July 10, 1972.

James F. Van Norman, appeared on his own behalf, Mineola, N. Y., for appellants.

Joseph L. Ward, U.S. Atty., Daniel E. Ahlstrom, Asst. U.S. Atty., Las Vegas, Nev., for appellee.

Before CHAMBERS, BROWNING and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges.


After a hearing James F. Van Norman, of Mineola, New York and counsel of record for the appellants, is assessed a penalty of Five Hundred Dollars for failure to prosecute the appeal with due diligence.

The said sum shall be paid within fourteen days from the filing of this order, and shall be paid into the Registry of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, at Los Angeles.

The order is made pursuant to Rule 46(c), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

United States v. Ferrara

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 10, 1972
469 F.2d 83 (9th Cir. 1972)

fining attorney for failure to prosecute appeal with due diligence pursuant to Rule 46(c)

Summary of this case from Gadda v. Ashcroft

fining attorney for failure to prosecute appeal with due diligence pursuant to Rule 46(c)

Summary of this case from Gadda v. Ashcroft
Case details for

United States v. Ferrara

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE, v. CHARLES ANTHONY FERRARA AND JAMES…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jul 10, 1972

Citations

469 F.2d 83 (9th Cir. 1972)

Citing Cases

Gadda v. Ashcroft

We have consistently found conduct unbecoming where an attorney failed to prosecute an appeal with due…

Gadda v. Ashcroft

We have consistently found conduct unbecoming where an attorney failed to prosecute an appeal with due…