Free Motion to Strike - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

PAUL K. CHARLTON United States Attorney District of Arizona DAVID A. PIMSNER Assistant U.S. Attorney Arizona State Bar No. 007480 Two Renaissance Square 40 North Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Telephone: (602) 514-7500 [email protected]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, NO. Plaintiff, v. Ricardo A. Buelna, Defendant. The United States of America, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby moves to strike the defendant's motion for the following reasons: I. The District Court Lacks Jurisdiction On April 18, 2003, a final Judgement of Conviction was entered by the District Court. The defendant was sentenced to 240 months in the Bureau of Prisons. The defendant filed a timely Notice of Appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. That appeal, which is assigned Court of Appeals Docket No. 03-10205, is still pending in the Ninth Circuit. Accordingly, the District Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the defendant's motion. See, United States v. Vroman, 997 F.2d 627, (9th Cir. 1993). II. The Defendant is Represented by Counsel. The defendant is currently represented by counsel, Michele R. Moretti, in the pending appeal. Accordingly, the defendant's pro se motion should not be considered pursuant to Rule 1.7 of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. // GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR REDRESS CR-02-0155-PHX-JAT

Case 2:02-cr-00155-JAT

Document 331

Filed 12/06/2006

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 I hereby certify that on December 6, 2006, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF system for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrant: Michele R. Moretti 7671 SW 117th Pl. Lake Butler, FL 32054 [email protected] s/ David A. Pimsner Assistant U.S. Attorney

III. Conclusion For the reasons stated herein, the government respectfully requests that the defendant's motion be stricken. It is expected excludable delay under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h) will not occur as a result of this motion or an order based thereon. Respectfully submitted this 6th day of December, 2006. PAUL K. CHARLTON United States Attorney District of Arizona s/ David A. Pimsner DAVID A. PIMSNER Assistant U.S. Attorney

Case 2:02-cr-00155-JAT

Document 331

Filed 12/06/2006

Page 2 of 2