U.S. v. JACKSON, 2:11-cr-00442-GMN-GWF-1. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20140606959
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jun. 04, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 04, 2014
Summary: ORDER ECF No. 220 GLORIA M. NAVARRO, Chief District Judge. Before the Court is Defendant Erik Tyrone Jackson's third Motion For Order For Defendant To Serve Federal Sentence Before State Sentence (ECF No. 220). This time, the Defendant cites to the decision in the District of Oregon regarding a California state law in a habeas petition, Cozine v. Crabtree, 15 F.Supp.2d 997 (D.Or., 1998); however, the Defendant fails to provide any legal analysis or explanation as to why he believes this o
Summary: ORDER ECF No. 220 GLORIA M. NAVARRO, Chief District Judge. Before the Court is Defendant Erik Tyrone Jackson's third Motion For Order For Defendant To Serve Federal Sentence Before State Sentence (ECF No. 220). This time, the Defendant cites to the decision in the District of Oregon regarding a California state law in a habeas petition, Cozine v. Crabtree, 15 F.Supp.2d 997 (D.Or., 1998); however, the Defendant fails to provide any legal analysis or explanation as to why he believes this op..
More
ORDER
ECF No. 220
GLORIA M. NAVARRO, Chief District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant Erik Tyrone Jackson's third Motion For Order For Defendant To Serve Federal Sentence Before State Sentence (ECF No. 220). This time, the Defendant cites to the decision in the District of Oregon regarding a California state law in a habeas petition, Cozine v. Crabtree, 15 F.Supp.2d 997 (D.Or., 1998); however, the Defendant fails to provide any legal analysis or explanation as to why he believes this opinion supports his request. In that case, Cozine was released because the California state court sentenced Cozine to a custodial term to be served concurrently with his federal sentence while Defendant Jackson admits that his Nevada state court sentence was specifically ordered to run consecutive to his federal sentence.
Because this Court is unable to readily discern the applicability of the case referenced in the motion and there appears to be no other basis for the granting of the request, Defendant's Motion (ECF No. 220) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
