Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

219 F.2d 809

Docket No. 15232.

Gregory v. United States

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided March 2, 1955.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1955-03-02

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently January 1973

11 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1955-03-02

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*810Cleo Gregory, in pro. per.

¶2James W. Dorsey, U. S. Atty., J. Robert Sparks, Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.

¶3Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, HOLMES, Circuit Judge, and DAW-KINS, District Judge.

¶4HUTCHESON, Chief Judge.

¶5The appellant, an inmate of the Atlanta Penitentiary, was charged with and convicted of the murder there of one Douglas, another inmate. Sentenced by the court to life imprisonment on February 6, 1953, he did not appeal. On November 16, 1953, however, appellant, at that time an inmate of Alcatraz Penitentiary, filed in the sentencing court1 a motion to vacate and set the sentence aside. After full and careful consideration of the grounds of the motion, the district judge, for the reasons fully set out by him of record, found the motion without merit, and on March 8, 1954, entered an order denying it.

¶6Appellant, on June 28, 1954, addressed a letter to the district judge in the nature of a notice of appeal from the order, stating in it that, though the notice of appeal was not timely, he had not received the notice which had been sent to his attorney and he was not notified of the order until June 25th, and praying that the court rule the notice as timely and allow him to appeal in forma pauperis.

¶7The district judge, stating “Whether the appeal is filed in time is not for this court to determine”, allowed the prosecution of the appeal in forma pauperis, and upon the record so made up, the appellant appearing, by brief, is here seeking a reversal.

¶8The United States moves to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction and for want of diligent prosecution. Further urging upon us that, for the reasons fully set forth in its brief, the appeal is entirely wanting in merit, indeed is frivolous, it sums up the record showing that the trial was fair.2

¶9Because the appeal was not timely filed, we may not, if we would, consider the cause on its merits, but must dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

¶10Appeal dismissed.

/219/f2d/809 · .json · Public domain