Opinion
Civil Action No. 07-cv-01638-WDM, (Criminal Action No. 05-cr-00495-WDM).
November 8, 2007
ORDER
Defendant has filed pro se on November 2, 2007, a document titled "Motion for Reconsideration Production of the Valid Implementing Regulations Under 8 C.F.R. Chapter I" in which he apparently asks me to reconsider my Order Denying Motion to Correct Sentence that was filed in this action on August 8, 2007. Defendant seeks reconsideration because I "did not provide to the Petitioner any proof of the valid implementing regulations which make Title 8 U.S.C. positive law, that applies to immigration violations criminally, and the district court evaded the facts and law, by not providing findings of fact and conclusions of law, as is required under F.R.Cv.P." (Mot. for Reconsideration at 1.) The motion for reconsideration will be denied. My reasoning for denying Defendant's motion to correct his sentence is set forth in the Order Denying Motion to Correct Sentence.
Defendant also has filed on November 5, 2007, a document titled "Notice and Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Habeas Corpus, Under F.R.A.P., Rule 42(a)." That motion will be denied because Defendant is referring to a habeas corpus petition that he alleges is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the "Motion for Reconsideration Production of the Valid Implementing Regulations Under 8 C.F.R. Chapter I" filed on November 2, 2007, is denied. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the "Notice and Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Habeas Corpus, Under F.R.A.P., Rule 42(a)" filed on November 5, 2007, is denied.