U.S. v. Patterson, 1:07-cr-00033-MR-8. (2018)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20181109f54
Visitors: 16
Filed: Nov. 06, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 06, 2018
Summary: ORDER MARTIN REIDINGER , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's motion requesting a copy of his Presentence Report [Doc. 632]. The Defendant requests a copy of his Presentence Report. The Defendant, however, has no current matters pending before the Court. The Defendant was originally sentenced in April 2008. [Doc. 239]. The last activity in this matter occurred in October 2014 when the Defendant was sentenced to a term of 30 months' imprisonment for a violat
Summary: ORDER MARTIN REIDINGER , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's motion requesting a copy of his Presentence Report [Doc. 632]. The Defendant requests a copy of his Presentence Report. The Defendant, however, has no current matters pending before the Court. The Defendant was originally sentenced in April 2008. [Doc. 239]. The last activity in this matter occurred in October 2014 when the Defendant was sentenced to a term of 30 months' imprisonment for a violati..
More
ORDER
MARTIN REIDINGER, District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's motion requesting a copy of his Presentence Report [Doc. 632].
The Defendant requests a copy of his Presentence Report. The Defendant, however, has no current matters pending before the Court. The Defendant was originally sentenced in April 2008. [Doc. 239]. The last activity in this matter occurred in October 2014 when the Defendant was sentenced to a term of 30 months' imprisonment for a violation of the terms of his supervised release. [Doc. 522]. With no current motions pending, the Defendant has failed to demonstrate a particularized need for his Presentence Report. See United States v. Velasquez, No. 5:10-CR-00042, 2012 WL 3307264, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 13, 2012) (Voorhees, J.) (holding that a copy of presentence report may be obtained from the district court only upon a showing of particularized need) (citing United States v. Williams, No. 88-7340, 1989 WL 152422, at *2 (4th Cir. Dec. 11, 1989)). Accordingly, the Defendant's motion must be denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant's motion requesting a copy of his Presentence Report [Doc. 632] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
