Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Hauck

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

March 13, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
RALPH E. HAUCK, JR. Defendant

          ORDER

          Yvette Kane, District Judge United States District Court

         THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

         On April 14, 2011, Ralph E. Hauck, Jr. was charged in a four count indictment for three counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and one count of trespassing at the Allenwood Federal Correctional Complex, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1793. (Doc. No. 1; see Doc. No. 42.) Defendant entered into a plea agreement on January 5, 2012. (Doc. No. 48.) On January 31, 2012, Defendant entered a plea of guilty to one count in the indictment - possession of a firearm by a convicted felon - before Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle, III (Doc. Nos. 53, 56). This Court accepted Defendant's guilty plea on February 23, 2012 (Doc. No. 58), and sentenced Defendant on July 24, 2012 (Doc. No. 66).

         Following receipt and consideration of Defendant Ralph E. Hauck, Jr.'s requests to modify the conditions of his supervised release and correct the record (Doc. No. 119; see Doc. Nos. 117-18, 120-23), this Court appointed Edward J. Rymsza to represent Defendant in this matter on September 28, 2016 (Doc. No. 124). Defendant, through his counsel, filed an unopposed motion to correct the record on November 21, 2016. (Doc. No. 127.)

         Upon review of the record, it is clear that the Government (Doc. Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20, 34) and this Court (Doc. Nos. 42, 44, 45) incorrectly filed documents captioned “United States of America v. Robert E. Hauck, Jr.” On another occasion, the Government erroneously referred to Robert E. Hauck Jr. in a sentencing memorandum. (Doc. No. 63 at 1.) ACCORDINGLY, upon independent review of the record and applicable law, on this 13th day of March 2017, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Defendant's unopposed motion to correct the record (Doc. No. 127), is GRANTED;
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to replace the erroneously captioned documents in the above-captioned action with the attached orders (Doc. Nos. 42, 44, 45);
3. The Government shall correct the record and remove all erroneous references to Robert E. Hauck Jr. (Doc. Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20, 34, 63), on or before April 15, 2017, by filing the respective, amended documents with the Clerk of Court; and
4. Following the completion of the record correction, the Clerk of Court is directed to forward this Order and its accompanying attachments to a representative from Westlaw, LexisNexis, and Bloomberg Law to notify each electronic legal research provider of the record correction.

         EXHIBIT A

         MEMORANDUM ORDER

         On April 14, 2011, the grand jury returned a four count indictment against Defendant charging him with: (1) Possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), in Count 1; (2) Trespassing at the Allenwood Federal Correctional Complex, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1793, in Count 2; (3) Possession of firearms and ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), in Count 3; and (4) Possession of firearms and ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), in Count 4. (Doc. No. 1.) Currently pending before the Court is Defendant's motion to strike surplusage from the indictment. (Doc. No. 30.)

         Specifically, Defendant moves to strike the references to ammunition in Counts 3 and 4 of the indictment and references to Defendant being “a convicted felon” in Counts 1, 3, and 4 of the indictment. The United States agrees that references to “ammunition” should be stricken from Counts 3 and 4. (Doc. No. 34 at 2.) Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendant's motion on that issue. However, the United States opposes Defendant's motion to strike references to Defendant being a convicted felon in Counts 1, 3, and 4. (Id. at 3-5.) For the reasons stated more fully herein, the Court will deny Defendant's motion on that issue.

         Pursuant to Rule 7(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Court is empowered to strike surplusage from the indictment on a timely motion from a defendant. Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(d). However, the Court may only grant a motion to strike surplusage where the information in question is both irrelevant and prejudicial. United States v. Hedgepeth, 434 F.3d 609, 612-13 (3d Cir. 2006) (emphasizing that the Court may only strike information that is be both irrelevant and prejudicial). Pursuant to this “exacting standard, ” a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.