From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Robles

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
Apr 30, 2013
CR. NO. 98-00456 SOM (D. Haw. Apr. 30, 2013)

Opinion

CR. NO. 98-00456 SOM

04-30-2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. TIMOTHY JON ROBLES, Defendant.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

JUDICIAL NOTICE OF PREVIOUSLY

ADJUDICATED FACTS, MOTION FOR

HEARING, AND MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF

PREVIOUSLY ADJUDICATED FACTS, MOTION FOR

HEARING, AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Before the court are a Motion For Judicial Notice of Previously Adjudicated Facts, Motion for Hearing, and Motion for Reconsideration, all filed by Defendant Timothy Robles. The court denies all three motions.

With respect to the Motion for Judicial Notice of Previously Adjudicated Facts, this court is concerned that, notwithstanding his assertions that he only wants the court to take judicial notice of "facts," Robles appears to the court to be arguing the effect of prior court rulings. The effect is not an "adjudicative fact" subject to judicial notice under Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Even if Robles were limiting himself to adjudicative facts, he does not establish why any prior court order is relevant to his ongoing attempt to end his supervised release term early. At this point, the substantive matter before the court is a motion seeking reconsideration of this court's denial of his motion for early termination of supervised release, and nothing in the request for judicial notice is a new matter that could not have been brought to the court's attention before the denial. Indeed, the matters Robles raises have been the subject of several prior submissions by Robles.

With respect to the motion for an additional hearing on the reconsideration motion and the reconsideration motion itself, Robles does not raise matters that warrant reconsideration. Everything argued in his reconsideration motion is a matter dating back many years. At this point, this court is focused on whether Robles is adjusting well to being released, not on challenges to earlier rulings that are not before this court. Early termination of supervised release is not an automatic matter of right. Even if, in a case not before this court, Robles feels he was wronged, that does not require this court to end supervised release early in the present case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, April 30, 2013.

______________________

Susan Oki Mollway

Chief United States District Judge
United States v. Robles, CR. NO. 98-00456 SOM, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF PREVIOUSLY ADJUDICATED FACTS, MOTION FOR HEARING, AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION


Summaries of

United States v. Robles

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
Apr 30, 2013
CR. NO. 98-00456 SOM (D. Haw. Apr. 30, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Robles

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. TIMOTHY JON ROBLES, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

Date published: Apr 30, 2013

Citations

CR. NO. 98-00456 SOM (D. Haw. Apr. 30, 2013)