Opinion
Criminal Case No. 05-cr-00014-REB
11-22-2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MINOR MICHAEL STILL, a/k/a Michael Still, Defendant.
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AS MOOT
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is pro se defendant's Motion for Clarification [#62] filed November 18, 2011. I deny the motion as moot.
"[#62]" is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the court's electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order.
In response the defendant's first motion for clarification [#60], I entered my order [#61] on October 18, 2011, clarifying that the defendant's obligation to pay restitution does not begin until he has been released and discharged from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons and has commenced his term of supervised release. The defendant has now filed a second motion seeking the same relief that I have already granted. Thus, I must deny this second motion as moot.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Motion for Clarification [#62] filed pro se by the defendant November 18, 2011, is DENIED as moot;
2. That this order SHALL BE SERVED on the defendant, counsel for the government, and the Bureau of Prisons, c/o of the Warden, FCI - Florence; and
3. That the Order Granting Request for Clarification [#61] entered October 18, 2011, SHALL BE SERVED on the Bureau of Prisons, c/o of the Warden, FCI -Florence.
Dated November 22, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
Robert E. Blackburn
United States District Judge