United States v. Valentine, 8:18CR102. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20191220e92
Visitors: 7
Filed: Dec. 19, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 19, 2019
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL D. NELSON , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on the defendant's motion (Filing No. 75) requesting the "original transcripts/and recording of the March 20, 2018, interview from OPD Officer Justine Rudloff's phone as part of my evidentiary submissions" and the "evidentiary log sheet" kept by OPD. The defendant also requests a copy of his plea agreement. To the extent the defendant requests a copy of his plea agreement, the Court has previously explained he may
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL D. NELSON , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on the defendant's motion (Filing No. 75) requesting the "original transcripts/and recording of the March 20, 2018, interview from OPD Officer Justine Rudloff's phone as part of my evidentiary submissions" and the "evidentiary log sheet" kept by OPD. The defendant also requests a copy of his plea agreement. To the extent the defendant requests a copy of his plea agreement, the Court has previously explained he may ..
More
ORDER
MICHAEL D. NELSON, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the defendant's motion (Filing No. 75) requesting the "original transcripts/and recording of the March 20, 2018, interview from OPD Officer Justine Rudloff's phone as part of my evidentiary submissions" and the "evidentiary log sheet" kept by OPD. The defendant also requests a copy of his plea agreement.
To the extent the defendant requests a copy of his plea agreement, the Court has previously explained he may purchase copies of the requested document at a rate of 50¢ per page from the Clerk's Office of the United States District Court. The plea agreement is 7-pages and therefore the defendant must submit payment of $3.50 to the Clerk in order to receive a copy.
To the extent the defendant is requesting the original recording of his interview with OPD and evidence logs kept by the OPD, the Court does not have possession of such documents. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED: The defendant's motion (Filing No. 75) is denied.
Source: Leagle
