U.S. v. Rainey, 3:98-cr-00093-MOC. (2018)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20180712b38
Visitors: 15
Filed: Jul. 10, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 10, 2018
Summary: ORDER MAX O. COGBURN, JR. , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on a pro se letter (#107) in which defendant asks the Court to convert the balance of his sentence of incarceration into home detention. For cause, defendant states that he is needed at home to help his spouse so they do not lose their apartment. Defendant's letter was mailed June 28, 2018, some eight days after the Final Supervised Release Revocation Hearing was conducted on June 20, 2018, but before Judgment (#1
Summary: ORDER MAX O. COGBURN, JR. , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on a pro se letter (#107) in which defendant asks the Court to convert the balance of his sentence of incarceration into home detention. For cause, defendant states that he is needed at home to help his spouse so they do not lose their apartment. Defendant's letter was mailed June 28, 2018, some eight days after the Final Supervised Release Revocation Hearing was conducted on June 20, 2018, but before Judgment (#10..
More
ORDER
MAX O. COGBURN, JR., District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on a pro se letter (#107) in which defendant asks the Court to convert the balance of his sentence of incarceration into home detention. For cause, defendant states that he is needed at home to help his spouse so they do not lose their apartment. Defendant's letter was mailed June 28, 2018, some eight days after the Final Supervised Release Revocation Hearing was conducted on June 20, 2018, but before Judgment (#106) was entered July 3, 2018. Thus, the Court deems that the request was filed the date it was mailed from the detention facility.
While this Court is not unsympathetic to defendant's desire to get home and help, defendant remains represented by Mr. Carpenter, a very skilled advocate; thus, any request or motion must come through counsel. L.Cr.R.47.1(g).
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that to the extent defendant seeks modification of the Judgment in his pro se letter (#107), the request is DENIED without prejudice.
Source: Leagle
