Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

MEEKS v. U.S., 3:12-cr-188-FDW-19 (2016)

Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina Number: infdco20160219a54 Visitors: 27
Filed: Feb. 18, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 18, 2016
Summary: ORDER FRANK D. WHITNEY , Chief District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on its own motion following the Court's finding that an evidentiary hearing should be held as to various claims in Petitioner's motion to vacate. Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings provides that appointment of counsel is required for an evidentiary hearing if the petitioner qualifies under 18 U.S.C. 3006A. The Court finds that Petitioner should be appointed counsel, as it does not appea
More

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on its own motion following the Court's finding that an evidentiary hearing should be held as to various claims in Petitioner's motion to vacate. Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings provides that appointment of counsel is required for an evidentiary hearing if the petitioner qualifies under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. The Court finds that Petitioner should be appointed counsel, as it does not appear likely that he can afford an attorney at this time as he has been incarcerated since his arrest.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk shall appoint counsel for Petitioner in accordance with the CJA plan and in conjunction with the Federal Defender. 2. The Clerk is directed to certify copies of this Order to Petitioner, the Federal Defender, and the U.S. Attorney.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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