Thornton v. United States of America
Filing
125
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying petitioner's 124 MOTION for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 6/6/2012. (cc: attys; petitioner; United States Magistrate Judge) (tmh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT CHARLESTON
RANDY L. THORNTON,
Petitioner
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-00245
(Criminal No. 2:04-00225)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending is petitioner's motion for rehearing of his
request for a writ of error coram nobis, filed May 25, 2012.
Petitioner essentially seeks the expunction of his $5,000 fine
and release from custody.
This action was previously referred to the Honorable
Mary E. Stanley, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission
to the court of her Proposed Findings and Recommendation
(“PF&R”) for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.
13, 2012, the magistrate judge filed her PF&R.
On March
In its Judgment
and accompanying memorandum opinion and order entered May 2,
2012, the court adopted the magistrate judge's PF&R.
The court
concluded that petitioner failed to demonstrate the demanding
elements attached to a request for the writ to issue or to seek
a modification of the fine payment schedule pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3572(d)(3).
Nevertheless, the court construed one limited portion
of the petition as a motion to modify the payment schedule
pursuant to section 3572(d)(3).
So construed to that confined
extent, the court ordered that the payment schedule found in the
Judgment should be reduced in amount from the rate of $25 per
month to the rate of $25 per quarter, a sum that, as the court
noted, petitioner has demonstrated a proven ability to pay over
time.1
In his motion for rehearing, petitioner asserts that
he "was able to make quarterly [payments] only at the expense of
most everything els[e]."
(Mot. at 1).
Irrespective of this
assertion, petitioner has not sought relief pursuant to section
3572(d)(3) and has not satisfied the requirements for the writ
to issue.
The court, accordingly, ORDERS that the motion for
rehearing be, and it hereby is, denied.
1
According to the payment schedule attached to petitioner's
objections, he has made a $25 payment for each quarter that has
elapsed since December 2009.
2
The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this
written opinion and order to the petitioner, all counsel of
record, and the United States Magistrate Judge.
DATED: June 6, 2012
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?