United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Kane, District Judge United States District Court
BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
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).
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.)
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
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;
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.
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.)
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
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 ...