Opinion
00-cr-90036
01-31-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. TOI HORN, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR AN EMERGENCY HEARING (ECF No. 754)
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
More than sixteen years ago, Defendant Toi Horn pleaded guilty in this Court to one count of aiding and abetting wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1343 pursuant to a Rule 11 Plea Agreement. (See Superseding Information, ECF No. 432; Plea Agmt., ECF No. 422.) Prior to sentencing, the Judge then presiding over Horn's case ordered Horn to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. (See Order, ECF No. 495.) It appears that Horn underwent that evaluation, and the Court ultimately determined that Horn was competent to proceed to sentencing. (See 3/23/2006 Hr'g Tr., ECF No. 558, PageID.2960-2961.) On March 24, 2006, the Court sentenced Horn to six months imprisonment with credit for time served. (See Judgment, ECF No. 553.) Horn was released from custody on April 4, 2006. (See ECF No. 560.) Horn's case has been closed for over fifteen years.
In April 2021, Horn returned to this Court and filed a motion to re-open this case. (See Mot., ECF No. 747.) It appeared that Horn wanted the case to be reopened so that the director of the facility where Horn underwent the psychological evaluation prior to sentencing could complete or produce a certificate arising out of that evaluation. (See id.) The Court denied the motion on May 6, 2021. (See Order, ECF No. 748.)
On August 26, 2021, Horn filed a second motion in which Horn again sought a copy of a certificate from the director of the facility where Horn underwent the psychological evaluation. (See Mot., ECF No. 752.) The Court denied that motion on December 13, 2021. (See Order, ECF No. 753.)
Horn has now filed yet another motion in which Horn “seek[s] the certificate” from the psychological evaluation. (See Mot., ECF No. 754, PageID.6058.) Horn further asks the Court to hold an “emergency hearing” on that request. (Id.) Horn's motion is DENIED. For all of the reasons stated in the Court's previous orders, Horn has not shown an entitlement to relief. Horn has not shown why Horn needs the certificate or why it would be appropriate to provide it at this time.
Finally, the Court notes that this is the third unsupported motion that Horn has filed asking for the same relief. The Court has denied each of these motions. The Court cautions Horn that if Horn continues to file unsupported, frivolous motions in this action, the Court may sanction Horn and/or enjoin Horn from making future filings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.