Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. WALIZER, 2:10-CR-00124-PMP-RJJ. (2015)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20150106c51 Visitors: 15
Filed: Jan. 05, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 05, 2015
Summary: ORDER PHILIP M. PRO, District Judge. Currently pending before the Court is Defendant Darryl Walizer's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 (Doc. #131) filed March 20, 2014. Given the paucity of information contained in Defendant's original motion, substantial delay has resulted in allowing Defendant Walizer to supplement his motion and to enable Plaintiff United States to respond thereto. On December 1, 2014, Defendant Walizer filed a Supplemental Brief
More

ORDER

PHILIP M. PRO, District Judge.

Currently pending before the Court is Defendant Darryl Walizer's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. #131) filed March 20, 2014. Given the paucity of information contained in Defendant's original motion, substantial delay has resulted in allowing Defendant Walizer to supplement his motion and to enable Plaintiff United States to respond thereto. On December 1, 2014, Defendant Walizer filed a Supplemental Brief in support of his Motion to Vacate (Doc. #155). The Government's Response is due to be filed January 2, 2015.

However, on December 8, 2014, Defendant Walizer filed a Motion for Case Documentation and Order to Unseal (Docs. #156 and 157). For the reasons set forth in the Government's Response thereto (Doc. #159), the Court finds Defendant Walizer's latest motions for relief must be denied.

Specifically, Defendant Walizer fails to explain how the additional documents requested could be relevant to any cognizable claims set forth in his § 2255 Motion. As noted by the Government in its Response (Doc. #159), Defendant Walizer's disagreement with the jury's assessment of evidence at trial, or his disagreement with defense counsel's tactical decisions regarding expert witness testimony does not provide a basis for relief under § 2255. Finding no merit in Defendant Walizer's Motion,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Walizer's Motion for Case Documentation and Order to Unseal (Docs. #156 and 157) is DENIED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer