U.S. v. Russell, 1:18 cr 66-2. (2018)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20180627b77
Visitors: 24
Filed: Jun. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 26, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENNIS L. HOWELL , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is Defendant's Ex Parte Motion for Funds for Interpreter [# 45]. Due to Defendant's hearing impairment, Defendant requires an interpreter. Defense counsel asks the Court to appoint Richard Haffner as interpreter. The Court notes that the statutory limit for authorization of fees is up to a $2,400 limit. 18 U.S.C. 3006A(e)(3). For good cause shown, the Court GRANTS the motion [# 45]. The Court APPOINTS Richard Haffner as int
Summary: ORDER DENNIS L. HOWELL , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is Defendant's Ex Parte Motion for Funds for Interpreter [# 45]. Due to Defendant's hearing impairment, Defendant requires an interpreter. Defense counsel asks the Court to appoint Richard Haffner as interpreter. The Court notes that the statutory limit for authorization of fees is up to a $2,400 limit. 18 U.S.C. 3006A(e)(3). For good cause shown, the Court GRANTS the motion [# 45]. The Court APPOINTS Richard Haffner as inte..
More
ORDER
DENNIS L. HOWELL, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant's Ex Parte Motion for Funds for Interpreter [# 45]. Due to Defendant's hearing impairment, Defendant requires an interpreter. Defense counsel asks the Court to appoint Richard Haffner as interpreter. The Court notes that the statutory limit for authorization of fees is up to a $2,400 limit. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e)(3).
For good cause shown, the Court GRANTS the motion [# 45]. The Court APPOINTS Richard Haffner as interpreter for Defendant. Defendant is authorized to utilize Mr. Haffner's services up to the statutory limit of $2,400. While Defendant's Motion was filed ex parte, the Court does not find that this Order should be sealed.
The Court notes Defendant's counsel used the incorrect case number in the Motion [# 45] and did not cite the relevant law. Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS Defendant's counsel to give more attention to detail in future filings. It is not the job of the Court or the Clerk's Office to rectify an attorney's mistakes.
Source: Leagle
