U.S. v. Valdez Torres, 2:15-CR-131 TLN. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190530a63
Visitors: 6
Filed: May 29, 2019
Latest Update: May 29, 2019
Summary: ORDER SEALING THE UNITED STATES' SENTENCING MEMORANDUM TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . Pursuant to Local Rule 141(b) and based upon the representation contained in the plaintiff United States of America's Request to Seal, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the United States' 4-page sentencing memorandum and the United States' Request to Seal shall be SEALED until further order of this Court. It is further ordered that access to the sealed documents shall be limited to respective counsel for the Un
Summary: ORDER SEALING THE UNITED STATES' SENTENCING MEMORANDUM TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . Pursuant to Local Rule 141(b) and based upon the representation contained in the plaintiff United States of America's Request to Seal, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the United States' 4-page sentencing memorandum and the United States' Request to Seal shall be SEALED until further order of this Court. It is further ordered that access to the sealed documents shall be limited to respective counsel for the Uni..
More
ORDER SEALING THE UNITED STATES' SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
Pursuant to Local Rule 141(b) and based upon the representation contained in the plaintiff United States of America's Request to Seal, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the United States' 4-page sentencing memorandum and the United States' Request to Seal shall be SEALED until further order of this Court. It is further ordered that access to the sealed documents shall be limited to respective counsel for the United States and counsel for the defendant for whom the memorandum pertained. The Court specifically finds, based on the information in the United States' sealing request that the United States has met its burden and established: (1) closure serves a compelling interest; (2) there is a substantial probability that, in the absence of closure, a compelling interest would be harmed; and (3) there are no alternatives to closure that would adequately protect the compelling interest. See Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1986) (Press-Enterprise II).
Source: Leagle
