From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Romannose

United States District Court, Northern District of Oklahoma
Oct 29, 2024
No. 21-CR-332-JFH (N.D. Okla. Oct. 29, 2024)

Opinion

21-CR-332-JFH

10-29-2024

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DAVID ANTHONY ROMANNOSE, Defendant.


OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN F. HEIL, III, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court are: (1) a motion to file an oversized brief [Dkt. No. 96]; (2) a motion to acquit [Dkt. No. 97]; and (3) a motion for hearing and oral argument [Dkt. No. 101] (“Motions”) filed by Defendant David Anthony Romannose (“Defendant”).

The Motions are drafted and signed by Defendant. However, the Court notes that Defendant is represented by counsel who has not signed the Motions. See Dkt. No. 102; Dkt. No. 103 (Ryan A. Ray appointed as Defendant's counsel). The Court need not consider a pro se filing when a defendant is represented by counsel who has not signed the document. See, e.g., United States v. Sandoval-De Lao, 283 Fed.Appx. 621, 625 (10th Cir. 2008). This Order will be sent to counsel of record so that Defendant and his counsel may confer regarding possible motions signed by counsel.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's (1) motion to file an oversized brief [Dkt. No. 96]; (2) motion to acquit [Dkt. No. 97]; and (3) motion for hearing and oral argument [Dkt. No. 101] are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.


Summaries of

United States v. Romannose

United States District Court, Northern District of Oklahoma
Oct 29, 2024
No. 21-CR-332-JFH (N.D. Okla. Oct. 29, 2024)
Case details for

United States v. Romannose

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DAVID ANTHONY ROMANNOSE, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of Oklahoma

Date published: Oct 29, 2024

Citations

No. 21-CR-332-JFH (N.D. Okla. Oct. 29, 2024)