Free Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel re Crack Cocaine Offense - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut


File Size: 62.2 kB
Pages: 1
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 526 Words, 3,127 Characters
Page Size: 611 x 792 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/8437/123.pdf

Download Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel re Crack Cocaine Offense - District Court of Connecticut ( 62.2 kB)


Preview Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel re Crack Cocaine Offense - District Court of Connecticut
MARCH 25,2008 f1
` Case 3:00-cr-00246-AVC Document 123 Fnled 04/02/2008 Page 1 o_
?i3$:?€i’$i3€ i'§0!.1L’€
C11;-:Eis‘¤ 2* :2- ii Ez`? E-.E1`Z“$jj’3 R D
, S
TO: HONORABLE JUDGE: ALFRED COVELLO ,¤fXl£Q@Q{@Q§;L¤Tqy»Q~2OcE?
s·»·1>`g‘°=;i1’H gE"aa§:‘s1, fbi-)
mom: Josspu L.cUY #14012-014
Dear JUDGE,
I'AM WRITTING YOU TO INFORM YOU OF THE PROGRESS,I'VE MADE WHILE I HAVE BEEN IN PRISON
THESE LAST 65 MONTHS OF A 120 MONTH SENTENCE I RECIEVED IN YOUR COURT IN THE YEAR 2002. MY
CHARGE WAS CONSPIRACY TO SELL CRACK COCAIN. I ALSO WANT TO JOG YOUR MEMORY A LITTLE BIT OF
MY PREVIOUS DRUG ADDICTION BEFORE MY ARREST AND MY RECOVERY EFFORTS AFTER A REALIZED WHAT
MY ADDICTION HAD COST ME. I ALLOWED MYSELF TO BE UED AS A MULE_TO PASS OFF DRUGS TO FEED
MY ADDICTION IN RETURN. IF I HAD NOT BEEN USING I WOULD HAVE NEVER PLACE MYSELF OR MY
WIFE AND CHILDREN THROUGH THESE LONG YEARS OF SEPERATION. AFTER I WAS ADMITTED INTO THE
ADRC REHIBILITATION PROGRAM AT MT. SINAI HOSPITAL, WHICH WAS ENCOURAGED BY MY ACTING PRE-
TRIAL PROBATION OFFICER, KOTIA LOPEZ AND ALSO OK'ED BY YOURSELF I'AM GREATFUL TO SAY I
HAVE BEEN SOBER EVER SINCE.I WAS ON PRETRIAL FOR 19 MONTHS AND IN THAT TIME I MAINTAIN MY
SOBRIATY,WORKED TWO CNSTANT JOBS AND DID NUMEROUS SIDE JOBS. WHILE ALSO BEING A FATHER TO
MY TWO DAUGHTERS AND A HUSBAND TO MY WIFE. I EXCEPTED RESPONSABILITY FOR MY ACTIONS AND
YOU BROUGHT ME DOWN FROM A LINE 36 TO LINE33 THAN BECAUSE OF ALL MY RECOVERY EFFORTS YOU
SEEN FIT TO COME TO THE MANDATORY MINIMUM. I ALSO RECALL YOU ASKING THE PROSERCUTION IF
I HAD HELP THEM AT ALL AND IF I DID WOULD THEY CONSIDER A LIGHTER SENTENCE. WHEN THEY ANSWERED
NQ ,I CAN REMEMBER vpn §"]’*A"l’*T'|\T(l munrn vnno unmnc M¤m¤-~ mv·¤~·~ ¤¤»··—···—··- --— ·-—··- -—-———— ————· -
3;OOCRO246(AVC) March 3/ , 2008. The court construes the within letter as.
a motion by the defendant to appoint counsel in connection with his pro se motion
for reduction of sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (document no. 118), filed
on November 19, 2007. As the court has already ruled on the motion to reduce his
sentence, by its order of March 18, 2008 (document no. 120), the within motion
is DENIED. To the extent the defendant seeks the appointment of counsel in
connection with any further issues, the defendant shall file a motion with the
Clerk in accordance with the filing requirements of the rules of procedure. See
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49; Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5;
District of Connecticut Local Rule 5.» Specifically, the defendant shall mail a
( co y of any such motion to rthe_ United States Attorney and shall file a
ceitificate of service with the>%ourt,¢inQaccordance with Federal Rule of Civil
Pr cedure 5(d). / {
SO ORDERED. _ . _ . 1 nn A 1/
*L.._i.. — I
Alfred V. Covello, U.S.D.J.
II