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. Christopherson

United States District Court, District of Nevada

February 5, 2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
IAN CHRISTOPHERSON, Defendant-Petitioner.

ORDER

MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court are two motions: (1) Motion to Clarify Status As Pro Se and Indigent (“Motion to Clarify”) (dkt. no. 191); and (2) Motion to Produce Billing Records (“Motion to Produce”) (dkt. no. 192).

In the Motion to Clarify, Petitioner appears to seek guidance that he may represent himself in his anticipated writ of habeas corpus proceedings and that he qualifies for in forma pauperis status. As Petitioner has not yet filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, counsel has not yet been appointed.[1] As for the second part of Petitioner’s request, the Court cannot provide an advisory ruling on Petitioner’s indigent status. Petitioner will have to submit the proper application to proceed in forma pauperis in connection with his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Motion to Clarify is therefore denied.

The Motion to Produce seeks a copy of payment records to Petitioner’s counsel in connection with his representation in the underlying case pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(d). Section 3006A(d)(4) provides that, subject to certain conditions, [2] the amounts paid to represent indigent defendants “shall be made available to the public by the court upon the court’s approval of the payment.” As a member of the public, Petitioner is entitled to disclosure of the amounts paid to his attorneys. To the extent Petitioner is seeking detailed billing records, Petitioner will need to request the information from his attorney. In addition, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006(d)(4)(E), the Court must give notice to defense counsel of the request for public disclosure to provide counsel the opportunity to request any redactions based on the considerations set forth in section 3006(d)(4)(D). A copy of the notices to Petitioner’s former appointed counsel is attached. The Court will issue an order addressing disclosure upon expiration of the time period for counsel to respond.

It is ordered that the Motion to Clarify (dkt. no. 191) is denied. The Court directs the Clerk to send Petitioner two (2) copies each of the Court's approved application form to proceed in forma pauperis for incarcerated persons and the Court's approved form for filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, as well as one copy of the instructions for each form.

It is further ordered that the Motion to Produce (dkt. no. 192) is granted as set forth herein.

February 2, 2015

Todd M. Leventhal Leventhal and Associates 626 South Third Street Las Vegas, Nevada 89101

Dear Mr. Leventhal:

Re: United States V. Ian Christopherson 2:09-cr-00056-MMD-VCF

The court recently received a request from Ian Christopher, by means of a motion, for the total amount of CJA funds paid in the above-referenced case. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3006A, the court must provide reasonable notice of disclosure to counsel for the defendant prior to releasing such information.

Please respond within 30 days of the date of this letter with any comments or objections specifically based on the interests identified in 18 U.S.C. §3006A(d)(4)(D):

1. to protect any person's 5th amendment right against self-incrimination;

2. to protect the defendant's 6th amendment rights to effective assistance of counsel;

3. the defendant's attorney-client privilege;

4. the work product privilege of the defendant's counsel;

5. the safety of any person; and

6. any other interest that justice may require, except that the amount of the fees shall not be considered a reason justifying any limited disclosure under 18 U.S.C. 30026A(d)(4).

Sincerely, Lance S. Wilson, Clerk of Court

Randall J. Roske 2055 West Charleston Blvd., Suite C Las Vegas, Nevada 89101-2258

Dear Mr. Roske:

Re: United States V. Ian Christopherson 2:09-cr-00056-MMD-VCF

The court recently received a request from Ian Christopher, by means of a motion, for the total amount of CJA fiimds paid in the above-referenced case. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3006A, the court must provide reasonable notice of disclosure to counsel for the defendant prior to releasing such information.

Please respond within 30 days of the date of this letter with any comments or objections specifically based on the interests identified in 18 U.S.C. §3006A(d)(4)(D):

1. to protect any person's 5th amendment right against self-incrimination;

2. to protect the defendant's 6th amendment rights to effective assistance of counsel;

3. the defendant's attorney-client privilege;

4. the work product privilege of the defendant's counsel;

5. the safety of any person; and

6. any other interest that justice may require, except that the amount of the fees shall not be considered a reason justifying any limited disclosure under 18 U.S.C. 30026A(d)(4).


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.