Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Tilley, 06-216 (2018)

Court: District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania Number: infdco20180823g48 Visitors: 4
Filed: Aug. 22, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 22, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION JOY FLOWERS CONTI , Chief District Judge . Pending before the court is a pro se "motion for change of jurisdiction" filed by defendant Lacy E. Tilley ("Tilley" or "defendant") at three of his criminal cases. (Crim. No. 09-43, ECF No. 172; Crim. No. 07-290, ECF No. 218; Crim. No. 6-216, ECF No. 620). Tilley filed an addendum to the motion. The government did not file a response. The court concludes that a response is not necessary. On April 15, 2011, the court sentenced
More

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the court is a pro se "motion for change of jurisdiction" filed by defendant Lacy E. Tilley ("Tilley" or "defendant") at three of his criminal cases. (Crim. No. 09-43, ECF No. 172; Crim. No. 07-290, ECF No. 218; Crim. No. 6-216, ECF No. 620). Tilley filed an addendum to the motion. The government did not file a response. The court concludes that a response is not necessary.

On April 15, 2011, the court sentenced Tilley to 110 months of incarceration and three years of supervised release at each case, to run concurrently, and ordered him to pay restitution. In the pending motion, Tilley requests that his case be transferred to the Northern District of Ohio. Tilley grew up in Painesville, OH and his father still resides there. Tilley asserts that he has no ties to the Pittsburgh area other than the employment that led to his criminal conviction, and has numerous adversaries in this area.

At the time Tilley filed the motion, he was detained at FCI Elkton. Tilley was primarily concerned about the Bureau of Prisons' directive that he be released from prison in the Pittsburgh area. He feared losing time in a halfway house because he did not have an appropriate release plan or support system in Pittsburgh. Since then, Tilley has relocated to his hometown of Painesville, OH. Tilley is reportedly doing well on supervised release and is being supervised by the probation office in Ohio, although this court retains jurisdiction over Tilley's criminal case.1

Because the relief sought by Tilley in the motion has been largely realized, the motion will be DENIED without prejudice to refile if Tilley can demonstrate a particularized burden resulting from this court's continued exercise of jurisdiction over his criminal case.

An appropriate order will be entered.

FootNotes


1. The district court for the Northern District of Ohio has not requested a transfer of jurisdiction.
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