U.S. v. BAIN, 4:14-cr-40022-HFB-BAB-1. (2015)
Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20150529a00
Visitors: 15
Filed: May 28, 2015
Latest Update: May 28, 2015
Summary: ORDER BARRY A. BRYANT , Magistrate Judge . BEFORE the Court is the pro se Motion to Reinstate Bond (ECF No. 23). Defendant asserts in shis pro se motion his pre-trial release was revoked because of his failure to pass five (5) drug screens while on release. He also states he is being held without being offered "any form of rehabilitation.". The Government has not responded to this motion. United States District Judge Harry F. Barnes referred the instant motion to the undersigned. On
Summary: ORDER BARRY A. BRYANT , Magistrate Judge . BEFORE the Court is the pro se Motion to Reinstate Bond (ECF No. 23). Defendant asserts in shis pro se motion his pre-trial release was revoked because of his failure to pass five (5) drug screens while on release. He also states he is being held without being offered "any form of rehabilitation.". The Government has not responded to this motion. United States District Judge Harry F. Barnes referred the instant motion to the undersigned. On A..
More
ORDER
BARRY A. BRYANT, Magistrate Judge.
BEFORE the Court is the pro se Motion to Reinstate Bond (ECF No. 23). Defendant asserts in shis pro se motion his pre-trial release was revoked because of his failure to pass five (5) drug screens while on release. He also states he is being held without being offered "any form of rehabilitation.". The Government has not responded to this motion. United States District Judge Harry F. Barnes referred the instant motion to the undersigned.
On April 28, 2015, Mr. Craig L. Henry was appointed by the Court to represent Defendant in this matter. ECF No. 22. Mr. Henry continues to represent Defendant. Defendant is entitled to court appointed counsel in this matter. He also has the right to proceed without counsel. He does not have the right to both types of representation at the same time. "The district court `has no obligation to entertain pro se motions filed by a represented party.'" United States v. Haubrich, 744 F.3d 554, 557 (8th Cir. 2014) quoting Abdullah v. United States, 240 F.3d 683, 686 (8th Cir.2001). Accordingly, this Court declines to entertain this pro se motion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, Defendant's pro se Motion to Reinstate Bond (ECF No. 23) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
