U.S. v. Chamberlain, 5:14-CR-128-H. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20180418c12
Visitors: 7
Filed: Apr. 17, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 17, 2018
Summary: ORDER MALCOLM J. HOWARD , Senior District Judge . This matter is before the court on defendant's renewed request, filed under seal, for cleared counsel to be read-on to this case. The government has not responded," but the court deems a response unnecessary. This matter is ripe for adjudication. Defendant once again seeks for a third attorney, William C. Pruden, to be read-on to the confidential information in this matter. While defendant once again asks this court to have cleared counsel
Summary: ORDER MALCOLM J. HOWARD , Senior District Judge . This matter is before the court on defendant's renewed request, filed under seal, for cleared counsel to be read-on to this case. The government has not responded," but the court deems a response unnecessary. This matter is ripe for adjudication. Defendant once again seeks for a third attorney, William C. Pruden, to be read-on to the confidential information in this matter. While defendant once again asks this court to have cleared counsel r..
More
ORDER
MALCOLM J. HOWARD, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the court on defendant's renewed request, filed under seal, for cleared counsel to be read-on to this case. The government has not responded," but the court deems a response unnecessary. This matter is ripe for adjudication.
Defendant once again seeks for a third attorney, William C. Pruden, to be read-on to the confidential information in this matter. While defendant once again asks this court to have cleared counsel read-on based on what defense counsel believes is a valid clearance, the court understands from information provided to defense counsel and the court from the Security Specialist at the Litigation Security Group that Mr. Pruden does not have an active security clearance that qualifies for access to information in this matter. Therefore, defendant is not "cleared counsel" for purposes of the above-captioned matter.
For failure to show good cause, the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Source: Leagle
