Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

389 F.2d 63

Docket Nos. 11634, 11635 and 11728.

United States v. Bailey

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Jan. 9, 1968.

Decided Jan. 23, 1968.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1968-01-23

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 1976

8 federal appellate ·

4 counsel of record

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2113

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1968-01-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Joseph L. Lyle, Jr., Lynchburg, Va. (Court-appointed counsel) [Hickson, Davies & Lyle, Lynchburg, Va., on brief], for appellant Bailey.

¶2John R. Alford, Lynchburg, Va. (Court-appointed counsel) [Caskie, Frost, Davidson & Hobbs, Lynchburg, Va., on brief], for appellant Millhouse.

¶3Myer Koonin, Washington, D. C. (Court-appointed counsel), for appellant Tyler.

¶4Thomas B. Mason, U. S. Atty., and Robert S. Irons, Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellee.

¶5Before BRYAN, WINTER and BUTZ-NER, Circuit Judges.

¶6PER CURIAM:

¶7Appealing against their convictions in the District Court for bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113, in Lynchburg, Virginia on June 28, 1966, John Lee Bailey, Lester Dean Millhouse and Oscar Tyler, Jr., all assign trial procedural errors, and Mill-house . and Tyler additionally question the sufficiency in' law of the proof of their guilt. We find no substantial mistakes of procedure and find evidence aplenty to sustain the judgments.

¶8Affirmed.

/389/f2d/63 · .json · Public domain