Opinion
2:22-cr-20113-SHL
05-10-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. BRIAN SAULSBERRY, Defendant.
ORDER CLARIFYING PAGEID NUMBER DIFFERENCE ON TRANSCRIPTS FROM THE HEARING ON MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND DIRECTING SAULSBERRY TO REFILE A CORRECTED PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
SHERYL H. LIPMAN CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Defendant Brian Saulsberry's Notice That There Are Two Identical Transcripts with Different “PageID” Numbers, filed May 3, 2024. (ECF No. 132.) Saulsberry points out that a transcript of the evidentiary hearing for the motion to withdraw guilty plea held on Wednesday, March 6 was uploaded onto CM/ECF on March 12, 2024. (Id. at PagelD 986.) This first transcript had PageID numbers ranging from PageID 496-689 and was referenced by Saulsberry in his Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Support of [Saulsberry's] Motion to Withdraw His Guilty Plea. (ECF No. 129.) However, that transcript stated that March 6 was a Tuesday on PageID 496 & 499 when, in fact, March 6 was a Wednesday.
The “Tuesday” PageID 496-689 transcript was uploaded onto the docket at 5:39 p.m. on March 12 at ECF No. 126. Five minutes later, when the error was noticed by the court reporter, an identical transcript, save for the Tuesday-Wednesday change, was sent to the Clerk's Office to replace the first one. (See ECF No. 126.) When the transcript was replaced the next morning at 8:59 a.m., the old PageID numbers (PageID 496-689) vanished; the new PageID numbers were PageID 690-883. (Id.)
Out of an abundance of caution, the Court ran a report that compared the content of the two transcripts. The only difference between the two, as previously mentioned, was the “Tuesday” to “Wednesday” swap at three different points on the first four pages of the transcript. But, while the content of the transcripts is the same, Saulsberry's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law references PageID numbers that are no longer on the docket.
In its upcoming order on the motion to withdraw, the Court will reference the PageID numbers from ECF No. 126 (PagelD 690-883). Therefore, Saulsberry is DIRECTED to resubmit his proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law referencing the current version of ECF No. 126 with PageID 690-883 within seven days of the entry of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED