Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Taylor v. United States
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. - 180 F.2d 1020
March 24, 1950 Further Rehearing Denied May 23, 1950
Earl W. Taylor, in pro. per., for appellant.
Frank J. Hennessy, U. S. Atty., Robert B. McMillan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Walter M. Campbell, J., Atty., Office of Chief Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before STEPHENS, HEALY and BONE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is from the district court's order denying appellant's motion to correct and reduce his claimed illegal sentence. Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the issues presented have heretofore been adjudicated by this court. It appears that the only genuine issue raised on this appeal concerns the sufficiency of the indictment under which appellant was convicted and sentenced upon his plea of guilty. In Taylor v. Squier, 9 Cir., 179 F.2d 640 (rehearing denied February 9, 1950), we held that the indictment sufficiently charged a violation of 26 U.S. C.A. § 145(b).
Appellant contends that this appeal raises other and new issues which were not presented on his former appeals. Taylor here presents lengthy arguments which are a mere repetition of arguments made on previous appeals. They are entirely devoid of merit. They are neither "new" nor do they present justiciable issues.
Appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal is granted.
Appeal dismissed.