U.S. v. SCOTT, 1:00-cr-00069-MR-5. (2014)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20140521c88
Visitors: 19
Filed: May 20, 2014
Latest Update: May 20, 2014
Summary: ORDER MARTIN REIDINGER, District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's "Motion for Recommendation" [Doc. 179]. The Defendant moves this Court for a written recommendation in support of the Defendant's petition for an executive clemency and sentencing commutation. The Court is without jurisdiction to address the Defendant's motion. "A clemency petition is directed to the executive branch of government which has the power to grant clemency or commute a sentence. As such,
Summary: ORDER MARTIN REIDINGER, District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's "Motion for Recommendation" [Doc. 179]. The Defendant moves this Court for a written recommendation in support of the Defendant's petition for an executive clemency and sentencing commutation. The Court is without jurisdiction to address the Defendant's motion. "A clemency petition is directed to the executive branch of government which has the power to grant clemency or commute a sentence. As such, c..
More
ORDER
MARTIN REIDINGER, District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's "Motion for Recommendation" [Doc. 179].
The Defendant moves this Court for a written recommendation in support of the Defendant's petition for an executive clemency and sentencing commutation.
The Court is without jurisdiction to address the Defendant's motion. "A clemency petition is directed to the executive branch of government which has the power to grant clemency or commute a sentence. As such, clemency is an executive remedy not a judicial remedy.... Indeed, clemency petitions and decisions to commute sentences are not the business of judges and the courts." Powell v. United States, Nos. 11-731-CG, 10-207-CG-C, 2013 WL 1561490, at *1 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 13, 2013) (quoting United States v. Lopez-Meza, Nos. CR 06-523-PHX-DGC, CV 06-2767-PHX-DGC(VAM), 2006 WL 3499919, at *1-2 (D. Ariz. Dec. 4, 2006)).
Accordingly, IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant's "Motion for Recommendation" [Doc. 179] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
