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
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Arthur J. Bartholomew, D/b/a Ecologistics Institute,defendant-appellant.no. 73-3140 Summary Calendar.**rule 18, 5 Cir.; Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970,431 F.2d 409, Part I
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. - 491 F.2d 728
March 22, 1974
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida; Wm. Terrell Hodges, Judge.
John M. Edman, St. Petersburg, Fla. (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.
John L. Briggs, U.S. Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., Claude H. Tison, Jr., Ronald H. Watson, Asst. U.S. Attys., Tampa, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before BELL, SIMPSON and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Bartholomew was convicted on eighteen counts of a 25-count indictment charging violation of the mail fraud statute, Title 18, United States Code, Section 1341. On appeal Bartholomew alleges error by the district court in that he was (1) denied speedy trial; (2) admitted introduction of statements by appellant in violation of his Miranda rights; (3) improperly admitted records under the Federal Business Records Act, 28 U.S.C. 1732.
After careful review of the record, we conclude that the appellant was given a fair trial and his assertions of error on appeal are without merit. The judgment of the district court is
Affirmed.