DUNN v. U.S., 2:02-cr-0468-MCE-CMK. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20120424919
Visitors: 4
Filed: Apr. 20, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 20, 2012
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., District Judge. On April 5, 2012, the Court heard oral argument on Petitioners T. Baxter Dunn's and N. Allen Sawyer's "Petition for Clarifying Order Pursuant to this Court's Previous Order Granting Writ of Error Coram Nobis" ECF Nos. 729 and 730. In the petitions, Dunn and Sawyer sought refund of the $40,000.00 in fines paid after pleading guilty in 2005 to honest services mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341 and 1346. Those convictions were later vacat
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., District Judge. On April 5, 2012, the Court heard oral argument on Petitioners T. Baxter Dunn's and N. Allen Sawyer's "Petition for Clarifying Order Pursuant to this Court's Previous Order Granting Writ of Error Coram Nobis" ECF Nos. 729 and 730. In the petitions, Dunn and Sawyer sought refund of the $40,000.00 in fines paid after pleading guilty in 2005 to honest services mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341 and 1346. Those convictions were later vacate..
More
ORDER
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., District Judge.
On April 5, 2012, the Court heard oral argument on Petitioners T. Baxter Dunn's and N. Allen Sawyer's "Petition for Clarifying Order Pursuant to this Court's Previous Order Granting Writ of Error Coram Nobis" ECF Nos. 729 and 730. In the petitions, Dunn and Sawyer sought refund of the $40,000.00 in fines paid after pleading guilty in 2005 to honest services mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1346. Those convictions were later vacated by this Court, following the United States Supreme Court's decision in Skilling v. United States, 130 S.Ct. 2896 (2010). In addition to reimbursement for the fines paid, Dunn and Sawyer also sought compounded annual interest.
After considering the briefs and hearing the parties' arguments, the court orally stated its reasoning and held that Dunn was entitled to reimbursement of the 40,000.00, but was not entitled to interest on that amount. This Order memorializes that decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
