IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 23, 2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
ANDREW RAY BLAXON, JR.,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
ANDREW RAY BLAXON, AKA ANDREW RAY BLAXON, JR., DEFENDANT.
RELATED CASE ORDER
The United States of America, by and through its under-signed attorney, hereby submits the government's statement of related cases. On May 5, 2011, an indictment was filed against defendant Andrew Ray Blaxon who is currently charged in a petition for violation of supervised release on the docket in criminal case 08-539 FCD. Within the meaning of Local Rule 123(f), a petition for violation of supervised release should be related to the new indictment and assigned to the judge of the new criminal action unless the original sentencing judge desires to retain the first action, in which circumstance both actions shall be assigned to the original sentencing judge. Here, Judge Damrell handled the original case in which the defendant was sentenced and received a term of supervised release. The defendant violated his supervised release conditions by committing a new law violation which is a subject of the new indictment. Because Damrell is familiar with the defendant, after handling both the original indictment and the supervised release violation, it may be a savings of judicial economy to relate the new indictment to the earlier action involving the violation of supervised release. Therefore, Judge Damrell, the original sentencing judge, should decide whether to retain the first action (the supervised release violation case), in which both actions shall then be assigned to Judge Damrell due to his familiarity with the defendant and the defendant's criminal record. This is the case especially in light of the fact that the new indictment case was recently assigned to Judge Burrell and very little litigation has proceeded in that matter.
Therefore, the government hereby requests that the above cases be referred to the Honorable Frank C. Damrell, Jr. for his consideration and determination whether he desires to have both cases assigned to him.
DATED: May 20, 2011 Respectfully submitted, BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney By: /s/ William S. Wong WILLIAM S. WONG Assistant U.S. Attorney
Examination of the above-entitled actions reveals that these actions are related within the meaning of Local Rule 123(f) where a petition for violation of supervised release should be related to a new indictment.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action designated as CR. S-08-539 FCD and CR. S-11-201 GEB be, and the same hereby is, reassigned to the Honorable FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR., for all further proceedings. Henceforth the captions on all documents filed in the reassigned case shall be shown as CR. S-11-201 FCD.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court make appropriate adjustment in the assignment of criminal cases to compensate for this reassignment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.