United States v. D'Amario

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ARTHUR D'AMARIO

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Date published: Dec 11, 2012

Crim. No. 06-112 (D.N.J. Dec. 11, 2012)

Opinion

Crim. No. 06-112

12-11-2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ARTHUR D'AMARIO

Paul S. Diamond

ORDER

AND NOW, this 11th day of December, 2012, it is ORDERED that Defendant's pro se Motion to Stay Illegal, Second Sentence is DENIED without prejudice. Defendant, who is represented by counsel, is not entitled to hybrid representation. See McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 183 (1984) (no Sixth Amendment right to "hybrid representation"); United States v. D'Amario, 328 F. App'x 763, 764 (3d Cir. 2009) (per curiam) ("[A] district court is not obligated to consider pro se motions by represented litigants.").

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________

Paul S. Diamond, J.