United States of America v. Carlberg

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM Order. Under the circumstances this Court must look to the government again, this time to respond to the highly expanded version that has now been tendered by Carlberg (a response that perforce must once again seek appropriate input fro m attorneys Kling and Dusberger). Without limiting the nature of the government's response, it should certainly treat with the question of whether an evidentiary hearing will or will not be necessary to dispose of the matter. Finally, given the expansive nature of Carlberg's new submission, this Court will not set a deadline for the government's response -- instead it asks that the United States Attorney's Office submit its view as to an appropriate timetable after it has gotten into the process of preparing its response. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 11/6/2014. Mailed notice(tlp, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
SCOTT C. CARLBERG, 22644-424
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14 C 2388
(Crim. No. 08 CR 682)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
On April 3, 2013 this Court sentenced Scott Carlberg ("Carlberg") to a 348 month
sentence based on his plea of guilty to having robbed 11 banks, having possessed a firearm after
a prior felony conviction and having used a firearm in two of those bank robberies. One day
short of a year later Carlberg filed a timely 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ("Section 2255") motion seeking to
vacate or set aside his sentence on the ground that he was assertedly denied the effective
assistance of counsel in several respects. 1
This Court complied with Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings
for the United States District Courts ("Section 2255 Rules") by ordering the United States
Attorney's Office to respond to the motion (a response that necessarily included input from
attorney Dusberger and from the other lawyer charged by Carlberg with constitutionally deficient
1

During the course of the case Carlberg had fallings out with three successive members
of this District Court's federal defender panel before he finally completed his case with a fourth
attorney, Roger Dusberger ("Dusberger"). In light of the fact that attorney Dusberger is one of
the current targets of Carlberg's Section 2255 motion, it is probably a fair guess that final lawyer
Dusberger shares the sense that Shakespeare ascribes to King Lear:
How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is
To have a thankless child!

representation, Richard Kling ("Kling"). Then, pursuant to Section 2255 Rule 5(d), this Court
granted Carlberg leave to file a reply to the government's response -- and now, after obtaining
several extensions, Carlberg has generated an articulate 60 page magnum opus coupled with a
bulky set of attachments. 2
Under the circumstances this Court must look to the government again, this time to
respond to the highly expanded version that has now been tendered by Carlberg (a response that
perforce must once again seek appropriate input from attorneys Kling and Dusberger). Without
limiting the nature of the government's response, it should certainly treat with the question of
whether an evidentiary hearing will or will not be necessary to dispose of the matter. Finally,
given the expansive nature of Carlberg's new submission, this Court will not set a deadline for
the government's response -- instead it asks that the United States Attorney's Office submit its
view as to an appropriate timetable after it has gotten into the process of preparing its response.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: November 6, 2014

2

Although this comment should not be misunderstood as expressing any view as to the
merits of Carlberg's contentions, this reader cannot help wondering whether he (as well as
society) would not have been far better served if he had chosen to pursue a career other than
robbing banks.
-2-