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 of America v. Ricardo Flamingo Sainz

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


September 9, 2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
RICARDO FLAMINGO SAINZ, DEFENDANT.

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

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COURT DATE

Defendant, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a document entitled, "Motion, Request for Court Date in Relations to Criminal Monetary Penalties." For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.

Defendant was convicted June 27, 2008, pursuant to his pleas of guilty, of one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and credit application fraud, one count of bank fraud and attempted bank fraud, and one count of aggravated identity theft. The crimes involved the use of fraudulent identification information and stolen social security numbers to obtain lines of credit, resulting in the purchase of a luxury automobile, costing in excess of $36,000. Defendant was sentenced September 5, 2008 to a term of 42 months imprisonment, three years supervised release and restitution of $33,216.73. As part of his plea agreement, defendant waived his rights to appeal and collaterally attack his convictions and sentence.

Now, three years after his conviction, defendant writes to the court requesting a hearing to discuss the matter of "unjust restitution", stating his belief that the victim, Golden Credit Union, is being overpaid. As noted, defendant has waived his rights to appeal and collaterally attack his convictions and his sentence. Moreover, even in the absence of a waiver, the time for appeal and collateral attack have long passed. Lastly, were defendant to discover an appropriate procedural vehicle for raising this issue, his belief that the crime victim is being overpaid is both conclusory and unsupported. Accordingly, for all these reasons, the motion for a court hearing is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Edward J. Garcia

20110909

© 1992-2011 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.