U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
United States v. Kirstyn Ashley Niemela
This writing
- Type
- Opinion
- Per curiam
- Yes — no individual author
- Filed
- Aug. 23, 2023
- Case
- United States v. Kirstyn Ashley Niemela
- Case status
- Decided
Source The opinion is per curiam: issued in the name of the court, with no individual author. This is a fact about the opinion, not missing data.
Opening text
The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 23-3095 September Term, 2022 1:21-cr-00623-CRC-2 Filed On: August 23, 2023 United States of America, Appellee v. Kirstyn Ashley Niemela, Appellant BEFORE: Henderson, Pillard, and Childs, Circuit Judges ORDER Upon consideration of the emergency motion for release pending appeal, styled as an emergency motion for stay, the opposition thereto, and the reply; and the notice of intention to proceed pro se, it is ORDERED that the motion be denied. Appellant has not shown that this appeal presents a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in reversal, an order for a new trial, a sentence that does not include a term of imprisonment, or a reduced sentence to a term of imprisonment less than the total of the time already served plus the expected duration of the appeal process. See 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1)(B). Because appellant has a constitutional right to assistance of counsel on direct appeal, Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (1963), and the Supreme Court has recognized indigent defendants pursuing the first level of appellate review are “generally ill equipped to represent themselves,” Halb…
Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.