Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

USA v. Major, CR17-0096RSM. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Washington Number: infdco20180126e09 Visitors: 10
Filed: Jan. 23, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 23, 2018
Summary: ORDER REGARDING PENDING MOTIONS RICARDO S. MARTINEZ , District Judge . On January 23, 2018, the Court held a status conference and motion hearing to address the following four motions: 1. Defendant's Ex Parte Request to Change Caption (Dkt. #81); 2. Defendant's Ex Parte Motion for the Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. #82); 3. Defendant's Motion to Amend the Caption of the Indictment and Pleading (Dkt. #94); and 4. Defendant's Motion to Schedule Status Conference (Dkt. #95). After reviewing
More

ORDER REGARDING PENDING MOTIONS

On January 23, 2018, the Court held a status conference and motion hearing to address the following four motions:

1. Defendant's Ex Parte Request to Change Caption (Dkt. #81); 2. Defendant's Ex Parte Motion for the Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. #82); 3. Defendant's Motion to Amend the Caption of the Indictment and Pleading (Dkt. #94); and 4. Defendant's Motion to Schedule Status Conference (Dkt. #95).

After reviewing all the briefing submitted by each party, and after hearing from the parties during the status conference, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS:

1. Defendant's Ex Parte Request to Change Caption (Dkt. #81) is DENIED. The Court found no evidence supporting Defendant's assertion that his ability to receive or send legal mail, or his ability to access notary services, were impacted by the use of the name "Jon Major" in either the Indictment or caption in this case. 2. Defendant's Motion to Amend the Caption (Dkt. #94) is STRICKEN as DUPLICATIVE. 3. Defendant's Motion to Schedule Status Conference (Dkt. #95) is STRICKEN AS MOOT. 4. Defendant's Ex Parte Motion for the Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. #82) is DEFERRED pending an evidentiary hearing. In his motion, Defendant specifically requested that the Court "assign[] to me counsel from the Criminal Justice Act panel to represent me in any and all further proceedings, or in the alternative that it hold a hearing to determine my competency to waive counsel." Dkt. #82 at 3. Based upon the assertions made in Defendant's affidavit and memorandum of law in support of his motion, the Court has determined that an evidentiary hearing is necessary before it can resolve the motion before it. See United States v. Brugnara, 856 F.3d 1198, 1212-14 (9th Cir. 2017). The Court desires to provide Defendant an opportunity to present evidence in support of his motion, and the assertions he makes in his accompanying Affidavit. Accordingly, the Court has scheduled a status conference and motion hearing for February 27, 2018, at 10:00 a.m., at which time Defendant will have the opportunity to present any evidence or argument in support of his request for appointment of counsel.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer