USA v. Lawson et al

Filing 132

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
vs.
LEONARD ANDREW LAWSON,
LIZA YOUNG VALCARCEL,

3:10-cr-116-TMB-JDR
ORDER
REGARDING
MOTION TO LATE FILE
MOTION TO DISMISS
(Leonard Andrew Lawson)
(Docket No. 128)

Defendants.

Defendant Leonard Andrew Lawson moves the court to accept a late
filed Motion to Dismiss the Indictment. Docket 128. The motion is opposed by the
government. Docket 131. Lawson initially attempted to file the motion pro se, but

it was rejected by the clerk because it was not submitted by Lawson’s court
appointed attorney, D. Scott Dattan.1
The Motion to Dismiss seeks to reargue previous motions to suppress
and rulings by the court. Lawson alleges misconduct by agents and their handling
of the investigation that was subject to the suppression motions previously
considered. The agents’ actions have been previously probed at the suppression
hearings. No evidence has been proffered by the motion to dismiss to support the
claim of conspiracy by law enforcement officers, prosecutors and/or judicial
misconduct to deprive Lawson of his constitutional rights.

The testimony of

witnesses at the suppression hearing was tested by cross-examination in the context
of the totality of the evidence presented.
The Motion to Dismiss presents only rhetoric to support allegations of
perjury and false declarations or to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present
newly discovered evidence.
Whether the government has sufficient evidence to prove Lawson’s guilt
of the alleged charges in the Indictment is an issue to be tested. There is no
summary judgment procedure in a criminal case. Wherefore, the magistrate judge

1

In his declaration, Mr. Dattan claims that Lawson is adamant about having
the motion filed. Therefore he asks the court to accept Lawson’s motion so it
may become part of the record. As an attachment to the motion to accept late
filed motion, Lawson’s motion to dismiss is now officially part of the record.
10-cr-116-TMB-JDR LAWSON @128 Order Re Motion to Late File Mtn to Dismiss_mtd.wpd

2

concludes that the Motion to Dismiss is both untimely and insufficient to reargue
what has previously been decided in pretrial motions. The Motion to Dismiss as
presented lacks merit. Accordingly, the Motion to Accept Late Filed Motion to
Dismiss Indictment is DENIED.
DATED this 11th day of August, 2011, at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ John D. Roberts
JOHN D. ROBERTS
United States Magistrate Judge

10-cr-116-TMB-JDR LAWSON @128 Order Re Motion to Late File Mtn to Dismiss_mtd.wpd

3