U.S. v. DEFOOR, CR10-8216-03 PCT-DGC. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20150619a80
Visitors: 14
Filed: Jun. 17, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 17, 2015
Summary: ORDER DAVID G. CAMPBELL , District Judge . Helen Defoor, the wife of Defendant Kennith Lee Defoor, has filed a document asking that the payment of restitution and the special assessment be suspended until Defendant is released from custody because Social Security payments have been reduced or stopped in some unexplained manner. Doc. 780. The government has filed a response. Doc. 781. The motion will be denied because Mrs. Defoor is not a party to this case and, as a non-attorney, cannot re
Summary: ORDER DAVID G. CAMPBELL , District Judge . Helen Defoor, the wife of Defendant Kennith Lee Defoor, has filed a document asking that the payment of restitution and the special assessment be suspended until Defendant is released from custody because Social Security payments have been reduced or stopped in some unexplained manner. Doc. 780. The government has filed a response. Doc. 781. The motion will be denied because Mrs. Defoor is not a party to this case and, as a non-attorney, cannot rep..
More
ORDER
DAVID G. CAMPBELL, District Judge.
Helen Defoor, the wife of Defendant Kennith Lee Defoor, has filed a document asking that the payment of restitution and the special assessment be suspended until Defendant is released from custody because Social Security payments have been reduced or stopped in some unexplained manner. Doc. 780. The government has filed a response. Doc. 781.
The motion will be denied because Mrs. Defoor is not a party to this case and, as a non-attorney, cannot represent her husband in this matter. In addition, after considering Defendant's ability to pay to the extent it could in light of Defendant's refusal to provide financial information, the Court ordered Defendant to pay at least $25 per quarter toward his monetary penalties while incarcerated and $100 per month upon his release. Doc. 720 at 2. The Court thus has already considered Defendant's reduction in income due to his incarceration in imposing these minimum payments. The motion provides no basis for concluding that the Court's payment order was in error.
Source: Leagle
