United States v. Rattler

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JACKIE LEE RATTLER, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION

Date published: Dec 15, 2016

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2:13-cr-00012-MR-DLH-1 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 15, 2016)

Opinion

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2:13-cr-00012-MR-DLH-1

12-15-2016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JACKIE LEE RATTLER, Defendant.

Martin Reidinger United States District Judge

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's letter, which the Court construes as a motion requesting a copy of various court filings, including the Defendant's Presentence Report [Doc. 278].

The Defendant was sentenced to a term of 108 months' imprisonment on December 16, 2014. [Doc. 204]. The Fourth Circuit affirmed his conviction and sentence on February 29, 2016. [Doc. 252]. The Defendant subsequently filed a motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. [Doc. 262]. This Court dismissed the Defendant's motion to vacate and denied a certificate of appealability on September 23, 2016. [Doc. 274]. The Defendant has appealed the denial of his motion to vacate. [Doc. 279].

In his letter, the Defendant appears to seek copies of the following documents at the Government's expense: (1) Acceptance of Guilty Plea; (2) Presentence Report; (3) Objections to Presentence Report; (4) Supplement to Presentence Report; and (5) Sealed Sentencing Memorandum. As a certificate of appealability was denied, the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the Defendant's request. See Ray v. United States, No. 5:06-cr-12-BO, 5:09-cv-2-BO, 2010 WL 2813379, at *1 (E.D.N.C. July 16, 2010). In any event, however, the Defendant has failed to demonstrate a particularized need for his Presentence Report and the related filings. See United States v. Velasquez, No. 5:10-CR-00042, 2012 WL 3307264, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 13, 2012) (Voorhees, J.) (holding that a copy of presentence report may be obtained from the district court only upon a showing of particularized need) (citing United States v. Williams, No. 88-7340, 1989 WL 152422, at *2 (4^th Cir. Dec. 11, 1989)). For all of these reasons, the Defendant's motion must be denied.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant's letter [Doc. 278], which the Court construes as a motion, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: December 15, 2016

/s/_________

Martin Reidinger

United States District Judge