Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Castaneda

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 30, 2010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
FRANCISCO MEDINA CASTANEDA, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Edward J. Garcia, Judge United States District Court

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Defendant, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a motion for appointment of counsel, apparently to assist him in the preparation of a motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.

A defendant has no constitutional right to appointed counsel in post-conviction proceedings. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel extends only through the first appeal. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 755-57 (1991). Rather, if the court, within its discretion determines that "the interests of justice so require", counsel may be appointed for persons seeking relief under sections 2241, 2254 or 2255 of Title 28 of the United States Code. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2). Defendant has filed nothing in support of his request for counsel except a statement that he is indigent, nor are any post-conviction proceedings pending. Accordingly, the court is without any information to determine if the interests of justice will be served by appointment of counsel. The motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100830

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.