Walter Howard Thomas v. United States

249 F.2d 429 Walter Howard THOMAS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. No. 15496. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. Oct. 18, 1957. Walter Howard Thomas, in pro. per. Lloyd H. Burke, U.S. Atty., James B. Schnake, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee. Before LEMMON, BARNES and HAMLEY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. 1 Appellant has requested that his appeal be heard upon the briefs filed, without oral argument. The Government having no objection, it was so ordered. 2 Appellant was convicted by a jury of 25 counts of violation of 18 U.S.C. 641. Counts 1 through 12 charged appellant with theft of Government property, Counts 13 through 24 with sale of Government property, and Count 25 with concealment of Government property. The property in each instance was lead. An appeal from the conviction was heretofore dismissed for failure to prosecute. 3 Appellant then moved to vacate the sentence. This was denied in the District Court, and an appeal therefrom was dismissed for failure to prosecute. 4 Appellant thereafter moved to correct sentence, 1 which was denied by the District Court. This appeal if from that order of denial. 5 The District Court…

Appellant has requested that his appeal be heard upon the briefs filed, without oral argument. The Government having no objection, it was so ordered.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of 25 counts of violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 . Counts 1 through 12 charged appellant with theft of Government property, Counts 13 through 24 with sale of Government property, and Count 25 with concealment of Government property. *430 The property in each instance was lead. An appeal from the conviction was heretofore dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Appellant then moved to vacate the sentence. This was denied in the District Court, and an appeal therefrom was dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Appellant thereafter moved to correct sentence, 1 which was denied by the District Court. This appeal is from that order of denial.

The District Court sentenced appellant to ten years imprisonment on each of the first 12 Counts, the terms to run concurrently; ten years on Count 13 to run consecutively to Count 1; ten years on Counts 14 to 25, inclusive, to run concurrently with Count 13 and with each other, or a total sentence of 20 years.

Appellant mistakenly argues that the theft of Government…

(concurring) .

I concur in the result.

My associates have seen fit to dignify this appeal with a per curiam opinion consisting of five typewritten pages. In my view, the appeal is frivolous, and should be hustled out of court forthwith.