Opinion
CRIMINAL NO. 1:08-CR-022.
January 12, 2011
ORDER
AND NOW, this 12th day of January, 2011, upon consideration of the motion (Doc. 40) for sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), filed by defendant, and it appearing that counsel has been appointed to represent defendant in matters related to sentence reductions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (see Doc. 41), it is hereby ORDERED that the pro se motion for sentence reduction (Doc. 40) is STRICKEN from the record in the above-captioned case without prejudice to defendant's right to file subsequent motions through counsel of record.
See Abdullah v. United States, 240 F.3d 683, 686 (8th Cir. 2001) ("A district court has no obligation to entertain pro se motions filed by a represented party."); United States v. Tracy, 989 F.2d 1279, 1285 (1st Cir. 1993); United States v. Gallardo, 915 F. Supp. 216, 218 n. 1 (D. Nev. 1995) (same); Non-Punitive Segregation Inmates of Holmesburg Prison v. Kelly, 589 F. Supp. 1330, 1335-36 (E.D. Pa. 1984) (same); see also McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 183 (1984) ("[The Constitution] does not require a trial judge to permit `hybrid' representation. . . .");United States v. Singleton, 107 F.3d 1091, 1100 n. 7 (4th Cir. 1997) (same); Linnen v. Armainis, 991 F.2d 1102, 1105 n. 3 (3d Cir. 1993) (same); United States v. Romano, 849 F.2d 812, 816 (3d Cir. 1988) (same); cf. United States v. Goldberg, 67 F.3d 1092, 1098 (3d Cir. 1995).
This ruling should not be construed as any indication of the court's view on whether defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).