Opinion
8:23-cr-200-WFJ-AEP
09-24-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. KELLIS DION JACKSON a/k/a Chandler Dante Alexander
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RULE 29 ACQUITTAL OR NEW TRIAL
WILLIAM F. JUNG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The Court denies the defendant's Motion, found at Dkt. 137. The Motion mostly reprises prior motions.
The tax forms of Movant were provided to the Government from his probation officer, who was the reporting agent of the instant crime. Thereafter, the Government properly applied for an order to permit release of the returns information for the case. Dkts. 39, 40. Even if the movant's factual allegations were true, they set forth no grounds to dismiss an indictment.
The instant crime involved receiving Social Security disability payments under the original birth identity, and feigning indigency; while simultaneously receiving significant employment remuneration under a new identity, and misstating relevant facts to the Social Security office.
The res judicata issue has also been addressed previously and was the subject of a frivolous interlocutory appeal. Dkts. 67, 71, 72, 110. It is entirely frivolous.
The allegation about paystubs is unclear, but the Government's response, Dkt. 140, well explains the only issue Movant could be referring to. That assertion is frivolous.
Movant has had five different court-appointed lawyers, causing the first four to withdraw. He now complains of his fifth court-appointed attorney, standby counsel. Movant first states his standby counsel was in private practice with the undersigned and shared cases as part of this relationship. This is not at all true. Second, Movant states his standby counsel was the spouse of the judge in his prior federal “trial.” There was no trial-it was a guilty plea. Standby counsel was married to the U.S. Magistrate Judge assigned to Movant's prior case, No. 8:17-cr-506, but the marriage ended amicably 18 months before that indictment. In neither of these two frivolous assertions does Movant attempt to show or state prejudice.
The motion (Dkt. 137) is denied. The Court again cautions Movant that it will not be able to appoint him any new lawyers.
DONE AND ORDERED.