USA v. Ellis et al

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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAMIEN EDWARD MCDANIEL,
Defendant.
Case No. 13-cr-00818-PJH-3
ORDER SETTING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE ON MOTION FOR
REDUCTION OF SENTENCE
Re: Dkt. No. 616
The defendant in the above-captioned case filed a pro se motion for reduction of
sentence on June 9, 2026. See Dkt. 616. Pursuant to this court’s Miscellaneous Order
2019.01.25, defendant’s motion was referred to the Federal Public Defender, who had 21
days to decide whether to assume representation of the defendant. The 21 days have
now passed, and the Federal Public Defender has not filed a statement indicating its
intent to represent defendant for purposes of this motion.
As the court stated in its order denying defendant’s request to appoint counsel
(Dkt. 615), there is no Sixth Amendment right to counsel with respect to a motion under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). United States v. Townsend, 98 F.3d 510, 512-513 (9th Cir. 1996).
Nor is there a statutory right to counsel in connection with a motion brought under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c). “A person for whom counsel is appointed shall be represented at every
stage of the proceedings from his initial appearance ... through appeal, including ancillary
matters appropriate to the proceedings.” 18 U.S.C. 3006A(c). A motion brought under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) does not constitute an “ancillary matter[ ]” requiring counsel to be
appointed. See, e.g., United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007 (5th Cir. 1995).
Case 4:13-cr-00818-PJH Document 617 Filed 08/13/26 Page 1 of 2

2
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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Because defendant is not entitled to appointed counsel for purposes of filing a
motion brought under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), the court will allow defendant’s pro se motion
to go forward.
The court sets the following briefing deadlines on defendant’s motion for reduction
of sentence as follows: the government shall file an opposition or status report by August
28, 2026, the Probation Office shall file a response by August 28, 2026, and defendant
may file a reply brief seven days after the government’s response is filed and served
upon the defendant. The government shall file a proof of service showing that its
opposition brief was served upon defendant. The motion will thereafter be submitted on
the papers.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 13, 2026
/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
Case 4:13-cr-00818-PJH Document 617 Filed 08/13/26 Page 2 of 2