Opinion
21-CR-340-JFH
05-11-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ALEXANDER NICHOLAUS SWEET, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
JOHN F. HEIL, III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is a motion to modify no-contact order (“Motion”) filed by pro se Defendant Alexander Nicholaus Sweet (“Defendant”). Dkt. No. 134. In April 2022 after a three-day jury trial, Defendant was convicted of seven counts related to coercion and enticement of a minor and child pornography. See Dkt. No. 132. The victim of each count is M.L.C., who has a current pending divorce/annulment case against Defendant in Oklahoma state court. See Creek County Case No. FD-2021-00243. Before trial and upon motion of M.L.C.'s then-guardian ad litem, the Court entered a no-contact order prohibiting Defendant from having any contact with M.L.C. through any means. Dkt. No. 27.
The Court can and does take judicial notice of the state court docket. See United States v. Ahidley, 486 F.3d 1184, 1192 n.5 (10th Cir. 2007).
M.L.C. has since turned 18 years old and the guardian ad litem appointment has been terminated. See Dkt. No. 60 (sealed).
In the Motion, Defendant requests “to modify the no-contact order for the sole purpose of allowing him to serve divorce papers or to otherwise facilitate the dissolution of marriage.” Dkt. No. 134 at 1. He cites no authority for modifying the order. Id. The Government opposes the Motion and represents that M.L.C. also opposes it, stating “M.L.C.'s attorney advised the [G]overnment that M.L.C. does not want to modify the no-contact order for any reason, including annulment proceedings. Indeed, one of the reasons M.L.C. is filing for annulment is to prevent [Defendant] from contacting her again under any circumstance.” Dkt. No. 137.
Defendant provides no authority for his request. Further, Defendant has contact information for James Fatigante (“Counsel”), the attorney who represents M.L.C. in the divorce/annulment proceeding. See Dkt. No. 137-1. To the extent that Defendant wishes to serve papers for the purpose of divorce, they shall be served on Counsel.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's motion to modify no-contact order [Dkt. No. 134] is DENIED.