Filed: Jul. 23, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 23, 2012
Summary: ORDER (Letter — #117) ROGER L. HUNT, District Judge. Defendant has filed a Letter (#117, filed July 19, 2012) with the Court asking the Court to review his Criminal History points determined at the time of his sentencing, nearly four years ago, in October 2008. It is a violation of the Rules to write letters to the presiding judge, without also serving the United States and any future such correspondence is to be stricken. Although this letter is not only improper, but without any merit what
Summary: ORDER (Letter — #117) ROGER L. HUNT, District Judge. Defendant has filed a Letter (#117, filed July 19, 2012) with the Court asking the Court to review his Criminal History points determined at the time of his sentencing, nearly four years ago, in October 2008. It is a violation of the Rules to write letters to the presiding judge, without also serving the United States and any future such correspondence is to be stricken. Although this letter is not only improper, but without any merit whats..
More
ORDER
(Letter — #117)
ROGER L. HUNT, District Judge.
Defendant has filed a Letter (#117, filed July 19, 2012) with the Court asking the Court to review his Criminal History points determined at the time of his sentencing, nearly four years ago, in October 2008. It is a violation of the Rules to write letters to the presiding judge, without also serving the United States and any future such correspondence is to be stricken.
Although this letter is not only improper, but without any merit whatsoever, it will not be stricken, but will be disregarded, though it remains in the Court's file.
In his missive, the Defendant asks the Court to "review" his 17 Criminal History points. His Criminal History points have been reviewed numerous times by this Court, as well as the Circuit Court, and have been upheld, affirmed and confirmed.
At the time of sentencing, the Criminal History points were reduced to their present level of 17. Even that was contested strenuously by Ali's counsel at sentencing. The Court found the 17 points to be accurate.
He appealed his sentence. The appeal was dismissed because he had waived his right to appeal. He filed a § 2255 motion to vacate or correct his sentence, addressing, inter alia, the calculation of his Criminal History points. He claimed his points should be 7, not 12 or 17. This Court denied his § 2255 motion and Ali appealed that decision, only to have his appeal dismissed on December 21, 2011.
Ali's present letter, asking the Court to review his Criminal History points once again is frivolous. Any further requests will be considered by the Court to be abusive and will result in sanctions.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Letter (#117) remain in the file only as background for this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Letter (#117) is hereby disregarded and no action will be taken in furtherance thereof.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any future "letters" that are not presented in the proper form and with the proper service shall be stricken.
NOTICE is hereby given Defendant Falasha Ali that any violation of the foregoing will be met with sanctions from the Court.
