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. Phillips

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

December 31, 2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
LAVELLE PHILLIPS, Defendant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
LAVELLE PHILLIPS, Defendant.

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER, United States Attorney.

JASON HITT, Assistant U.S. Attorney Sacramento, CA.

NOTICE OF RELATED CASES [Local Rules 123(a)(4), 123(c)]

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief Judge.

NOTICE OF RELATED CASES

The United States of America, by and through Assistant United States Attorney Jason Hitt, notices the Court and the Clerk of the Court that the recently-returned Indictment in United States v. Phillips, Case No. 2:13-cr-0398 JAM, is related to the earlier Indictment in United States v. Phillips, Case No. 2:12-cr-0292 MCE. As a result, the subsequent case assigned to the Honorable John A. Mendez in United States v. Phillips, Case No. 2:13-cr-0398 JAM, should be reassigned to the Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr. based upon the authority set forth below.

The two Phillips Indictments are partially related within the meaning of Eastern District of California Local Rule 123(a)(1) and fully related under Local Rule 123(a)(4). In particular, under Local Rule 123(a)(1), both actions involve the same parties, namely, the United States and defendant Lavelle Phillips. Although they are not based on the same or a similar claim, as required by Local Rule 123(a)(1), the Court should be aware the subsequent Phillips Indictment does not include any parties who are not also included in the initial firearm Indictment assigned to Judge England.

The matters are related under Local Rule 123(a)(4) because keeping the Phillips cases assigned to different District Judges would entail substantial duplication of labor. In particular, if the matters are not consolidated before one District Judge, the defendant would be required to make routine court appearances before two distinct District Judges in the same division of the Eastern District of California, proceed to trial or enter guilty pleas before two different District Judges, and be sentenced separately by different District Judges. Indeed, the existing Phillips Indictment before Judge England has already resulted in a guilty plea and the sentencing is pending before Judge England. If Phillips is convicted in the second Indictment, there will be direct consequences on the Phillips sentencing exposure before Judge England. The matters are therefore related under Local Rule 123(a)(4) because assignment of these actions to a single Judge is likely to effect a great savings of judicial effort.

The United States therefore respectfully requests that this Honorable Court (1) relate the criminal Indictment in United States v. Phillips, Case No. 2:13-cr-0398 JAM, to the earlier Indictment in United States v. Phillips, Case No. 2:12-cr-0292 MCE; and (2) order the Clerk's Office to reassign the Indictment in United States v. Phillips, Case No. 2:13-cr-098 JAM, to the Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr. pursuant to Local Rule 123(c).

ORDER

For the reasons set forth in the Notice of Related Cases filed by counsel for the United States, the Court finds that the Criminal Case captioned United States v. Phillips, Case No. 2:13-cr-0398 JAM, is related to the case of United States v. Phillips, Case No. 2:12-cr-0292 MCE, within the meaning of Local Rule 123(a)(4) because assignment of these actions to a single District Judge is likely to effect a great savings of judicial effort.

Based upon this finding and pursuant to Local Rule 123(c), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The Clerk of the Court shall REASSIGN the case of United States v. Phillips, Case 2:13-cr-0398 JAM, to the Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr. and that case shall be designated "Case No. 2:13-cr-0398 MCE"; and

2. The Clerk of the Court shall make appropriate adjustment in the assignment of cases to compensate for this reassignment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.