Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_14-cr-00222/USCOURTS-ared-4_14-cr-00222-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Larry Hamilton
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

WESTERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF 

v. No. 4:14CR00222 JLH 

LARRY HAMILTON DEFENDANT 

ORDER 

It has been brought to the Court's attention that on October 4, 2016, Larry Hamilton 

attempted to file the documents attached to this Order, which are a notice of appearance in which 

he says that he has terminated the services of his attorney, Kim Driggers, and wishes to represent 

himself; a copy of a letter to Driggers giving notice that he is terminating her services; and a motion 

to withdraw the unopposed motion to continue jury trial. The Clerk of Court did not file these 

documents because Local Rule 5.5(c)(l) provides: 

Every pleading, motion, or other paper (except a pro se motion to discharge 

an attorney) filed in behalf of a party represented by counsel shall be signed by at 

least one attorney of record .... 

Local Rule 83.S(f) provides, "No attorney shall withdraw his appearance in any action or proceeding 

except by leave of Court .... " Because Hamilton is currently represented by an attorney and has 

not filed a prose motion to discharge his attorney, the Clerk properly refused to file the attached 

documents. Furthermore, Hamilton cannot unilaterally discharge his attorney-that requires a court 

order. 

If Hamilton wishes to proceed pro se after further consultation with his attorney, Kim 

Driggers, he must file a pro se motion to discharge Driggers. The Court will then conduct a hearing, 

if one appears to be needed, before ruling on the motion. 

Case 4:14-cr-00222-JLH Document 67 Filed 10/05/16 Page 1 of 7
As noted above, Hamilton moved to withdraw the unopposed motion to continue the jury 

trial. He notes that the basis for the earlier motion for a continuance was that the parties had entered 

into plea agreement negotiations, but that was no longer applicable. 

On October 3, 2016, Driggers filed a status report on behalf of Hamilton in which she noted 

that on September 27, 2016, the United States filed a superseding indictment and that on October 1, 

2016, the United States provided her with additional evidence that it intends to use at trial on the 

superseding indictment. In light of the superseding indictment and the recently provided evidence, 

she stated that she needed additional time to review the documents, file appropriate motions to limit 

or suppress that evidence, and conduct any additional investigation that may be needed. 

After reviewing the status report and the additional request for a continuance, the Court 

entered an Order on October 4, 2016, granting the motion for continuance in order to allow defense 

counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation for trial. That ruling was based upon 

the fact that the United States had recently filed a superseding indictment and had recently provided 

additional evidence to defense counsel, not based on the fact that the parties had entered into plea 

agreement negotiations. The Order granting the continuance will not be vacated. 

The Court directs Ms. Driggers to provide a copy of this Order to Mr. Hamilton. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 5""' day of October, 2016. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 4:14-cr-00222-JLH Document 67 Filed 10/05/16 Page 2 of 7
------------------------~ 

p• 50 ___ μ.___ ,RI 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

E~IQ UIS I h t.1 h1'K.WSAS 

«I 04 ZHHf 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) 

) 

-dAMES W:: 10, ... COltMKAc, @lii:ERK 

By:..e==~==~~~ DEPCLEHK 

v ) No. 4:14CR00222 JLH 

) 

LARRY HAMIL TON ) 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

1. COMES NOW, Defendant, Larry Hamilton (Hamilton), pro se, and for his 

Notice Of Appearance, states: 

2. Defendant has chosen to represent himself in the above referenced matter as 

a prose litigant and herewith notifies the Court of the change in his representation in this 

matter. 

3. Defendant has previously notified by letter, electronically delivered this day, 

his now previous counsel and attorney, Kim Driggers, of his intention to represent himself 

and the termination of her services. This letter is attached as Exhibit "A". 

L~ amilton 

pn se 

1008 Biscayne Drive 

Little Rock, AR 72227 

501-366-3900 

Leh3z@aol.com 

""',eo _,,,c;, 

~~~':IF 

d~~''"''~ '~ \)'\ ~ "'"''"' ~ ~,- \)"' . ~ 

~o,,0~ 

f;,':>~· 

~ ~..,. 

Case 4:14-cr-00222-JLH Document 67 Filed 10/05/16 Page 3 of 7
.. ------ -------------------------. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

This is to certify that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically delivered to Ali 

Ahmad, AAhmad2@usa.doi.gov and Hunter Bridges, Hbridges@usa.doj.gov, on this fourth 

day of October, 2016. 

Case 4:14-cr-00222-JLH Document 67 Filed 10/05/16 Page 4 of 7
October 4, 2016 

1008 Biscayne Dr. 

Little Rock, AR 72227 

VIA: ELECTRONIC DELIVERY 

Ms. Kim Driggers 

Federal Public Defenders Office 

Kim_ driggers@fd.org 

RE: United States of America v. Larry Hamilton 

No. 4:14CR00222 JLH 

Dear Ms. Driggers: 

Please know, your services as my attorney in the above referenced matter is 

immediately terminated. 

Case 4:14-cr-00222-JLH Document 67 Filed 10/05/16 Page 5 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) 

) ~)\IVJf!S W tSr·I : . ._.•f\:1,,_;, .... r 8 ..._ 

v ) 

-- -.. ,. '-'LC::n.n- .~~~~ ....... ~--._._ ..._ 

No. 4:14CR00222 JLH nu ccEitK 

) 

LARRY HAMIL TON ) 

MOTION TO WITHDRAW the UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONTINUE JURY TRIAL 

1. COMES NOW, Defendant, Larry Hamilton (Defendant), pro se, and for his 

Motion To Withdraw the Unopposed Motion To Continue Jury Trial (Motion To Withdraw), 

states: 

2. This Motion To Withdraw is pursuant to the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution which provides in part: 

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy ... trial. .. 

3. This Motion To Withdraw is also pursuant to Defendant's right to defend 

himself in this matter as a pro se defendant. 

4. An Unopposed Motion To Continue Jury Trial was filed on Defendant's behalf 

in the above referenced matter, on or about September 28, 2016. 

5. The primary basis of the Unopposed Motion To Continue Jury Trial was that 

the parties to this matter, had entered into plea agreement negotiations, which basis is no 

longer applicable. 

6. Defendant asserts by his Motion To Withdraw, herewith, his right to a speedy 

trial and requests that the Court grant Defendant's Motion To Withdraw or if the previous 

filed Unopposed Motion To Continue Jury Trial has been granted by order of t~\~~t 

de::-~,,,\\.\,·~~~ the Court vacate its order. ~~~\,\~,,~,1:. r, t>'~ a ~ t\\'l 

rut\ 

rJ:..rfo~ ~ ~s'<N·~ ~ 

\\i· 

Case 4:14-cr-00222-JLH Document 67 Filed 10/05/16 Page 6 of 7
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendant petitions the Court to grant 

Defendant's Motion To Withdraw the Unopposed Motion To Continue Jury Trial or if the 

Unopposed Motion To Continue Jury Trial has been granted by order of the Court, that the 

Court vacate its order. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

se 

1008 Biscayne Drive 

Little Rock, AR 72227 

501-366-3900 

Leh3z@aol.com 

This is to certify that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically delivered to Ali 

Ahmad, AAhmad2@usa.doLgov and Hunter Bridges "d es usa.do'. ov, on this fourth 

day of October, 2016. 

Case 4:14-cr-00222-JLH Document 67 Filed 10/05/16 Page 7 of 7