U.S. v. SYKES, 4:09-CR-00015-F-1. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20141007c35
Visitors: 10
Filed: Oct. 06, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 06, 2014
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. FOX, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the court on Kenyatta Sykes' Motion for Reconsideration and For Other Relief [DE-118]. In his motion, Sykes requests that this court reconsider its September 11, 2014 Order [DE-115], in which his motion to compel discovery was addressed. In the court's September 11, 2014 Order [DE-115], the court held that because Sykes did not have a pending 2255 motion before this court, his motion to compel discovery from the Government in
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. FOX, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the court on Kenyatta Sykes' Motion for Reconsideration and For Other Relief [DE-118]. In his motion, Sykes requests that this court reconsider its September 11, 2014 Order [DE-115], in which his motion to compel discovery was addressed. In the court's September 11, 2014 Order [DE-115], the court held that because Sykes did not have a pending 2255 motion before this court, his motion to compel discovery from the Government in p..
More
ORDER
JAMES C. FOX, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the court on Kenyatta Sykes' Motion for Reconsideration and For Other Relief [DE-118]. In his motion, Sykes requests that this court reconsider its September 11, 2014 Order [DE-115], in which his motion to compel discovery was addressed.
In the court's September 11, 2014 Order [DE-115], the court held that because Sykes did not have a pending§ 2255 motion before this court, his motion to compel discovery from the Government in preparation for a§ 2255 motion was DENIED without prejudice to renew should he have a§ 2255 motion that passes the court's initial review. Following a review of the record and the court's September 11, 2014 Order, the court finds that the September 11, 2014 Order adequately sets forth the rationale for denying Sykes' motion to compel. The court sees no meritorious reason to disturb its ruling. Accordingly, Sykes' Motion for Reconsideration and For Other Relief [DE-118] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
