From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Thompson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Feb 6, 2012
CRIMINAL NO. 1:11-CR-0077-02 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 6, 2012)

Opinion

CRIMINAL NO. 1:11-CR-0077-02

02-06-2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. HENRY THOMPSON


(Judge Conner)


ORDER

AND NOW, this 6th day of February, 2012, upon consideration of the motion to dismiss the indictment (Doc. 152), filed pro se by defendant Henry Thompson ("Thompson") on February 6, 2012, and it appearing that defendant is represented by counsel, William Fetterhoff, Esquire, but filed the instant motion without assistance therefrom, see United States v. D'Amario, 268 F. App'x 179, 180 (3d Cir. 2008) ("The Constitution does not confer a right to proceed simultaneously by counsel and pro se . . . ."); see also United States v. Vampire Nation, 451 F.3d 189, 206 n.17 (3d Cir. 2006), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 152) is DENIED without prejudice to defendant's right to file a motion seeking similar relief with the assistance of counsel or subsequent to the court deeming defendant pro se in the above-captioned matter.

___________

CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER

United States District Judge


Summaries of

United States v. Thompson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Feb 6, 2012
CRIMINAL NO. 1:11-CR-0077-02 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 6, 2012)
Case details for

United States v. Thompson

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. HENRY THOMPSON

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Feb 6, 2012

Citations

CRIMINAL NO. 1:11-CR-0077-02 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 6, 2012)