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. Pulley

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION


September 19, 2006

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
BETTY PULLEY, A/K/A BETTY DAVIS, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jeanne E. Scott, U.S. District Judge

OPINION

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (d/e 29) (IFP Motion) and her Motion for Extension of Time (d/e 30). As set forth below, the IFP Motion is denied as moot and the Motion for Extension of Time is allowed.

Turning first to the IFP Motion, Defendant requests that the Court waive the docketing fee for her appeal and the transcript fees. The Court notes that Defendant was determined to be financially unable to obtain an adequate defense in this Court; thus, she may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without further authorization. Fed.R.App.P. 24(a)(3). Moreover, Defendant is entitled to a transcript at the expense of the United States, without cost to herself, as set out in the Criminal Justice Act. Therefore, Defendant's IFP Motion is moot.

Turning to her Motion for Extension of Time, the Court notes that Defendant's pro se Notice of Appeal (d/e 25) was filed on August 25, 2006. There is no indication as to when Defendant, who is incarcerated, deposited it in her institution's internal mail system. The Motion for Extension of Time represents that Defendant did not inform her counsel that she wished to file a notice of appeal. Under 7th Circuit Rule 51, trial counsel in a criminal case is responsible for the continued representation of a client desiring to appeal unless relieved by the Court of Appeals. Moreover, after the sentencing hearing, Defendant was transferred from this district to a Federal Bureau of Prisons in Connecticut. The Motion for Extension of Time asserts that this may have made communications with counsel difficult. The Court finds good cause has been shown to extend the time to file a notice of appeal in the instant case. See Fed.R.App.P. 4(b)(4). Thus, the Motion for Extension of Time is allowed, and the Court extends the time in which to file a notice of appeal for 30 days, a period which the Court notes includes August 25, 2006, the date on which Defendant's Notice of Appeal was filed.

THEREFORE, Defendant's Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (d/e 29) is DENIED as MOOT. Her Motion for Extension of Time (d/e 30) is ALLOWED.

IT IS THEREFORE SO ORDERED.

JEANNE E. SCOTT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20060919

© 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.