KEVIN BYNUM and KEVIN WOMACK v. UNITED STATES.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “prior to addressing the merits of the appeal, we must review counsel’s compliance with the procedural requirements for withdrawing as counsel”
• holding that “prior to addressing the merits of the appeal, we must review counsel’s compliance with the procedural requirements for withdrawing as counsel”
• holding that “prior to addressing the merits of the appeal, we must review counsel’s compliance with the procedural requirements for withdrawing as counsel”
• holding that “prior to addressing the merits of the appeal, we must review counsel’s compliance with the procedural requirements for withdrawing as counsel.”
• holding that “[p]rior to addressing the merits of the appeal, we must review counsel’s compliance with the procedural requirements for withdrawing as counsel”
• holding that “[p]rior to addressing the merits of the appeal, we must review counsel’s compliance with the procedural requirements for withdrawing as counsel”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).