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. Brett Lee Hartman

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


January 25, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
BRETT LEE HARTMAN, DEFENDANT.

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

ORDER

Defendant, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, was convicted September 10, 2010, pursuant to his pleas of guilty of theft of government property, mail fraud, and forging and counterfeiting postage meter stamps in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 641, 1341 and 501. He was sentenced to a term of 27 months imprisonment, three years supervised release and restitution in the amount of $224,448.50. Judgment was entered on the docket February 3, 2011. He did not appeal his convictions or sentence.

In October of 2011, defendant filed a motion with the court to compel release of his criminal file, from his trial counsel. Defendant asserted that he needed the file to prepare a motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. He documented his unsuccessful attempts to obtain the file from his attorney absent court intervention. An order compelling release of the file was issued by the court October 28, 2011.

Now, defendant maintains his file is in the hands of the federal correctional institution in which he is incarcerated, in Florence, Colorado. However, for a variety of reasons, he states he is not able to peruse its contents, and, once again seeks court intervention, namely because of the one year statute of limitations he is up against in connection with his anticipated § 2255 motion.

The court is not unsympathetic to defendant's situation. Nonetheless, the court is not immediately aware of, nor has defendant cited, any authority which allows the court to direct the head of a federal correctional institution in another jurisdiction to satisfy defendant's demands. Rather, defendant must pursue his remedies with the institution administratively, or with the federal district court within the district in which he is incarcerated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Edward J. Garcia

20120125

© 1992-2012 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.