U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1964

Joseph E. Piatt v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided February 20, 1964 · Bazelon, Weight, McGowan

329 F.2d 883; 117 U.S. App. D.C. 315 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Milton V. Freeman, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Richard B. Sobol, Washington, D. C. (both appointed by this court) was on the brief, for appellant., Mr. David Epstein, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., and Frank Q. Nebeker and Donald S. Smith, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Anthony Williams v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1965)
United States v. Clayborne Jamison, Jr., United States of America v. Clayborne Jamison, Sr. (D.C. Cir. 1974)
Richard G. Augenblick v. The United States (Court of Claims 1967)
Richard E. Leigh v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1964)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Counsel appointed by this court to represent the appellant have presented for our consideration, by brief and oral argument, the only issues fairly raised by the record. Having examined these issues, we find them without sufficient merit to warrant reversal. Assigned counsel’s effort, however, in presenting the issues available, and thus insuring an appeal for an indigent defendant, is in the best tradition of the bar.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.