USA v. Gillette
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) ) Criminal Action No. 2007-50 RONALD GILLETTE, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) Attorneys: Denise Hinds, Esq., St. Croix, U.S.V.I. For the Government Joseph A. DiRuzzo, III, Esq., Miami, FL For the Defendant ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Ronald Gillette’s pro se “Motion to Reject Court Appointed Expert’s Report and Evidentiary Hearing Testimony,” which was filed on August 2, 2011, (Dkt. No. 387), and pro se “Informational Motion,” which was filed on March 16, 2012, (Dkt. No. 412). The first Motion requests that the August 7, 2011 Expert Report of Maria Julia, Psy. D, be rejected by the Court. The second Motion requests that the Competency Hearing set for March 23, 2012, be continued. Defendant is represented by counsel in this matter. (Dkt. No. 377). Accordingly, the Court will not consider these or any other pro se motions filed by Defendant in this case as long as he continues to be represented by counsel. See United States v. …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-1_07-cr-00050/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_07-cr-00050-4.pdf
SHA-256 3536fed3e5e97c92ac078e790be2d52e0f8e54a308da53d560d28f58367c59ad
Re-using this document
two independent grounds: a work of the United States Government under 17 USC 105, AND a judicial opinion, which is an edict of government and uncopyrightable by anyone including the court that wrote it
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-3536fed3e5e9
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) ) Criminal Action No. 2007-50 RONALD GILLETTE, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) Attorneys: Denise Hinds, Esq., St. Croix, U.S.V.I. For the Government Joseph A. DiRuzzo, III, Esq., Miami, FL For the Defendant ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Ronald Gillette’s pro se “Motion to Reject Court Appointed Expert’s Report and Evidentiary Hearing Testimony,” which was filed on August 2, 2011, (Dkt. No. 387), and pro se “Informational Motion,” which was filed on March 16, 2012, (Dkt. No. 412). The first Motion requests that the August 7, 2011 Expert Report of Maria Julia, Psy. D, be rejected by the Court. The second Motion requests that the Competency Hearing set for March 23, 2012, be continued. Defendant is represented by counsel in this matter. (Dkt. No. 377). Accordingly, the Court will not consider these or any other pro se motions filed by Defendant in this case as long as he continues to be represented by counsel. See United States v. D'Amario, 268 F. App'x 179, Case: 1:07-cr-00050-WAL-GWC Document #: 413 Filed: 03/20/12 Page 1 of 3 2 180 (3d Cir. 2008) (“The Constitution does not confer a right to proceed simultaneously by counsel and pro se, and the District Court was not obligated to consider [the defendant's] pro se motions in light of his being represented by counsel on direct appeal.” (citing McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 183 (1984))); United States v. Vampire Nation, 451 F.3d 189, 206 n.17 (3d Cir. 2006) (noting a district court was within its authority to order the Clerk of Court not to accept any further pro se filings by a defendant who was represented by counsel); Boone v. United States, 2011 WL 322359, at *2 (D.N.J. Jan. 28, 2011) (declining to consider pro se motion and stating that “[t]he Court will consider only those filings submitted by counsel of record.”); United States v. Gardner, 2009 WL 1405772, at *2 (W.D.N.C. May 18, 2009) (denying defendant’s pro se motions and stating that “[i]f the defendant wishes for motions to be filed by his counsel, he should discuss these matters with his attorney so his attorney can consider whether or not such requests have merit and if so, his attorney can then present them in the form of a motion or motions.”). Accordingly, Defendant is instructed to refrain from submitting any filings to the Court in this matter in a pro se capacity while he is represented by counsel. UPON CONSIDERATION of the foregoing and the entire record herein, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s pro se “Motion to Reject Court Appointed Expert’s Report and Evidentiary Hearing Testimony” is DENIED AND STRICKEN FROM THE DOCKET; and it is further ORDERED that Defendant’s pro se “Informational Motion” is DENIED AND STRICKEN FROM THE DOCKET; and it is further Case: 1:07-cr-00050-WAL-GWC Document #: 413 Filed: 03/20/12 Page 2 of 3 3 ORDERED that Defendant shall refrain from submitting any filings to the Court in this matter in a pro se capacity while he is represented by counsel. SO ORDERED. Date: March 20, 2012 ________/s/_______ WILMA A. LEWIS District Judge Case: 1:07-cr-00050-WAL-GWC Document #: 413 Filed: 03/20/12 Page 3 of 3