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. Taylor

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


April 3, 2006

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CHRISTOPHER B. TAYLOR, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, District Judge

ORDER

Before the Court are twelve motions submitted pro se by Defendant Christopher Taylor ("Defendant") that this Court now takes up. They are: (1) a motion for transcription of a DEA tape and sentencing hearing (Doc. 198); (2) a motion for the Court to order the Department of Justice ("DOJ") and the St. Clair County Jail to provide a law library (Doc. 199); (3) a motion to appoint new counsel (Doc. 201);(4) a motion to order the U.S. Attorney, DEA, City of Alton, and phone company to provide all records, witness statements, confidential agreements, payment, and expense records relating to Tina Whittenburg (Docs. 202, 209); (5) a motion seeking co-counsel for Defendant's interlocutory appeal (Doc. 205); (6) another motion to appoint new counsel (Doc. 206); (7) a motion asking the Court to order Defendant's attorney to "perform his court appointment professionally . . . to the full extent of the law and the Illinois Professional Code of Ethics" (Doc. 210); (8) a motion to appoint new counsel or to proceed pro se (Doc. 219);(9) a motion for release from custody pending sentencing and appeal (Doc. 220); (10) a motion for a hearing on the question of Defendant's representation (Doc. 221);(11) a motion for copies of a CD-Rom and cassette tape relevant to this matter (Doc. 224); and (12) a motion seeking to be allowed to file pro-se objections to the PSR (Doc. 225).

First, the Court reiterates to Defendant that it will not entertain pro-se motions submitted by defendants that are represented by counsel. Defendant is currently well represented by counsel and has been informed of the Court's policy before. (See Doc. 171.) This policy has not changed. Thus, all of Defendant's pro-se motions that are unrelated to the issue of Defendant's representation are hereby DENIED. (Docs. 198, 199, 202, 220, 224, 225.)

Second, because Defendant's appeal has been denied by the Seventh Circuit (Doc. 222), the Court DENIES his motion for co-counsel on appeal as moot. (Doc. 205.)

Third and finally, although the Court notes that it has already held a hearing on the question of new counsel for Defendant, and although that Defendant has had eight attorneys in this case - including two at trial - the Court SETS Defendant's motions related to his representation in this matter for a hearing on April 6, 2006 at 1:00 p.m. (Docs. 201, 206, 210, 219, 221.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

David RHerndon United States District Judge

20060403

© 1992-2006 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.