U.S. v. Anderson, 14-cr-00576-SI-1. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20180316b16
Visitors: 25
Filed: Mar. 15, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 15, 2018
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE RULE 36 MOTION TO CORRECT CLERICAL ERROR Re: Dkt. Nos. 57, 62 SUSAN ILLSTON , District Judge . On December 11, 2017, defendant Denzel Anderson filed a pro se "Rule 36 Motion to Correct Clerical Error," contending that he was being denied appropriate credit for pre-plea time served. Dkt. No. 57. On January 11, 2018, counsel for the government and for Mr. Anderson filed a Joint Response to the motion (Dkt. No. 62). In the Joint Response, government counsel asserted tha
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE RULE 36 MOTION TO CORRECT CLERICAL ERROR Re: Dkt. Nos. 57, 62 SUSAN ILLSTON , District Judge . On December 11, 2017, defendant Denzel Anderson filed a pro se "Rule 36 Motion to Correct Clerical Error," contending that he was being denied appropriate credit for pre-plea time served. Dkt. No. 57. On January 11, 2018, counsel for the government and for Mr. Anderson filed a Joint Response to the motion (Dkt. No. 62). In the Joint Response, government counsel asserted that..
More
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE RULE 36 MOTION TO CORRECT CLERICAL ERROR
Re: Dkt. Nos. 57, 62
SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge.
On December 11, 2017, defendant Denzel Anderson filed a pro se "Rule 36 Motion to Correct Clerical Error," contending that he was being denied appropriate credit for pre-plea time served. Dkt. No. 57. On January 11, 2018, counsel for the government and for Mr. Anderson filed a Joint Response to the motion (Dkt. No. 62). In the Joint Response, government counsel asserted that this Court has no jurisdiction to resentence the defendant, and that in any event the time served had been properly computed; defendant's counsel requested that the Court reserve ruling until he could file a response, after he reviewed the transcript. Nothing has been filed since that time.
Accordingly, counsel for defendant Anderson is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing to be filed no later than March 26, 2018, why the Rule 36 motion should not be dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
