5:05-cr-00009•USA v. Eckles et al
Full text
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA STATESVILLE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO: 5:05CR9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Plaintiff ) vs. ) ) ORDER BRENDON GERARD STEELE, ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________ ) THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT in response to a handwritten letter from the defendant, Brendon Steele, to Senior United States District Judge Graham C. Mullen received February 14, 2006. In the letter, the defendant appears both to request a bond hearing and to express concerns about the performance of his retained counsel, Kenneth Snow. It is the longstanding policy of this Court not to entertain pro se motions from defendants represented by counsel, and therefore, that portion of Mr. Steele’s letter which can be interpreted as a motion for bond is DENIED as moot, without prejudice to Mr. Steele’s ability to bring the motion again, if appropriate, after consulting with his counsel. However, due to the concerns expressed by Mr. Steele concerning his current relationship with his attorney, Kenneth Snow, the matter will be placed on for an inquiry to counsel hearing when the undersigned is next in Court. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, to the extent Mr. Steele’s letter to Judge Mullen may be fairly interpreted as a motion for bond, that motion is DENIED as moot. The Clerk is directed to put the case on for inquiry to counsel at the earliest possible time. Case 5:05-cr-00009-MEO-DCK Document 483 Filed 02/27/06 Page 1 of 2
Signed: February 27, 2006 Case 5:05-cr-00009-MEO-DCK Document 483 Filed 02/27/06 Page 2 of 2
OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA STATESVILLE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO: 5:05CR9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff VS. BRENDON GERARD STEELE, ) ) ) ) ORDER ) Defendant. ) ) THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT in response to a handwritten letter from the defendant, Brendon Steele, to Senior United States District Judge Graham C. Mullen received February 14, 2006. In the letter, the defendant appears both to request a bond hearing and to express concerns about the performance of his retained counsel, Kenneth Snow. It is the longstanding policy of this Court not to entertain pro se motions from defendants represented by counsel, and therefore, that portion of Mr. Steele’s letter which can be interpreted as a motion for bond is DENIED as moot, without prejudice to Mr. Steele’s ability to bring the motion again, if appropriate, after consulting with his counsel. However, due to the concerns expressed by Mr. Steele concerning his current relationship with his attorney, Kenneth Snow, the matter will be placed on for an inquiry to counsel hearing when the undersigned is next in Court. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, to the extent Mr. Steele’s letter to Judge Mullen may be fairly interpreted as a motion for bond, that motion is DENIED as moot. The Clerk is directed to put the case on for inquiry to counsel at the earliest possible time. INFORMATION GPO pe 5:05-cr-O0009-MEO-DCK Document 483 Filed 02/27/06 Page1of2 Signed: February 27, 2006 David C. Keesler United States Magistrate Judge Case 5:05-cr-O0009-MEO-DCK Document 483 _ Filed 02/27/06 Page 2 of 2
Wondering how this text applies to your situation?
Free consultation, no commitment
Describe your situation. Our team will contact you by email about your consultation.
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.