MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

ROGER W. TITUS, District Judge.

On April 14, 2014, Petitioner filed a Motion to Vacate Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [ECF No. 99], and filed an Amended Motion on June 23, 2014 [ECF No. 103]. These motions remain pending before this Court. On May 4, 2015, Petitioner filed a Motion for Relief to Conform the Proceedings With Due Process Principles and to Further the Orderly Administration of Justice [ECF No. 109]. In this motion, Petitioner requests that the Court: (1) appoint counsel to represent him in the proceedings on his § 2255 Motions; (2) direct the Clerk of this court to provide copies of all documents filed by the Court or Respondent since May 28, 2014, as well as copies of the case records that the Court ordered the Clerk to provide to petitioner by its June 20, 2014 Order [ECF No. 102]; (3) instruct the Clerk and Respondent to address all mailings to Petitioner personally, rather than to the Warden of his correctional institution; and (4) direct the Court Reporter to provide to Petitioner a transcript of the Attorney Inquiry Hearing before Magistrate Judge Connelly on August 3, 2011.

18 U.S.C. § 3006A(2) provides that "representation may be provided for any financially eligible person" seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, if the United States magistrate judge or the court "determines that the interests of justice so require." Based on the voluminous filings submitted by Petitioner, the Court concludes that he is able to adequately present his arguments without the assistance of counsel, and will deny this request. On December 9, 2014, the Clerk of this Court sent Petitioner a copy of the docket sheet as well as ECF Nos. 36 and 37, per this Court's June 20, 2014 Order. ECF Nos. 106, 107. However, in order to ensure that Petitioner receives the requested documents, the Court will again instruct the Clerk to provide Petitioner with a copy of the docket sheet as well as ECF Nos. 36 and 37. The Court will deny Petitioner's request that all documents be addressed to him personally rather than the Warden of FCI Cumberland, as it is the practice of this Court to send court documents to the Warden rather than to inmates personally. Last, because a transcript of the August 3, 2011, Attorney Inquiry Hearing is not currently available, the Court will deny Petitioner's request for a copy of the transcript. Accordingly, Petitioner's Motion for Relief to Conform the Proceedings With Due Process Principles and to Further the Orderly Administration of Justice [ECF No. 109] will be granted in part to the extent that he again seeks a copy of the docket sheet and the documents that were sent to him per this Court's June 20, 2014 Order [ECF No. 102], and denied as to all other requests.

On June 2, 2015, this Court issued an Order directing the Government to respond to Petitioner's § 2255 Motions within sixty (60) days. ECF No. 110. On August 19, 2015, the Government filed a Motion to Late File Response to Petitioner's § 2255 Motions, citing a heavy case load that caused the Special Assistant United States Attorney to inadvertently miss the deadline. ECF No. 111. The Government's Response was filed on the same day. ECF No. 112. On October 9, 2015, Petitioner filed a response in opposition to the Government's Motion to Late File, and moved for a prompt ruling on the Government's motion. ECF No. 116. He also moved for an order of the Court granting him leave to file a reply within sixty (60) days of the date this Court rules on the Government's Motion. Id. The Court finds that the Government's delay was minimal and was the result of excusable neglect. Therefore, the Government's Motion to Late File Response [ECF No. 111] will be granted. Petitioner's motion for a prompt ruling on the Government's motion [ECF No. 116] will be denied as moot. Petitioner's request to file a reply [ECF No. 116] will be granted, but he will be directed to file any reply to the Government's Response within twenty-eight days of the date of this Order.

On August 26, 2015, Petitioner moved for sanctions against the Government for its allegedly undue delay in responding to his motion. ECF No. 113. The Government's minimal delay in filing its response to Petitioner's § 2255 Motions does not amount to conduct necessitating sanctions. This request will be denied. In the same motion, Petitioner again requested that this Court appoint counsel to assist him with developing evidence in support of his claims for relief, and to conduct an evidentiary hearing on his § 2255 Motions. As explained above, the Court finds that appointment of counsel is not necessary. Therefore, Petitioner's Motion for Sanctions Against Respondent and for Other Relief [ECF No. 113] will be denied.

Accordingly, it is this 25th day of January, 2017, by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland,

ORDERED, that Petitioner's Motion for Relief to Conform the Proceedings With Due Process Principles and to Further the Orderly Administration of Justice [ECF No. 109] is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that Petitioner seeks a copy of the docket sheet and ECF Nos. 36 and 37, and DENIED IN PART as to all other requests; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk SHALL PROVIDE a copy of the docket sheet and copies of ECF Nos. 36 and 37 to Petitioner; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Government's Motion to Late File Response to Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2225, Amended Motion, and Supplement [ECF No. 111] is hereby GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED, that Petitioner's Motion for Sanctions Against Respondent and for Other Relief [ECF No. 113] is hereby DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED, that Petitioner's Motion for a Prompt Ruling as to Government's Motion, with Request for Alternate Relief If the Motion to Late File is Granted [ECF No. 116] is hereby GRANTED IN PART to the extent that Petitioner seeks to file a reply to the Government's Response, and DENIED IN PART as to all other requests; and it is further

ORDERED, that Petitioner SHALL FILE any reply to the Government's Response to Motion to Vacate [ECF No. 112] within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this Order; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk SHALL PROVIDE a copy of this Order to Petitioner.