“state Order form (06197) c i é

if ‘
United Staves District Court, Northern District of Illinois

qi)

wivoe Magistrate Jue Milton I. Shadur “than signed Judge
CASE NUMBER 01 CR 1099 DATE 6/24/2002
CASE USA vs. Matthew Linton
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.]
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd) Oo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) im Brief in support of motion due
(3) Oo Answer briefto motion due___. Reply to answer brief due
(4) oO Ruling/Hearingon___—_setfor__—S at
(5) oO Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—setfor__—_att
(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—ssetfor_——s at.
() Oo Trial{set for/re-set for}on_ at
(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continuedto at
(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OOFRCP4(m) (General Rule 21 OFRCP41(a\(1)  FRCP41(a\(2).
ao) ol [Other docket entry} Enter Memorandum Order. Matthew Linton’s self-prepared motion to

dismiss is denied. (54-1)

| [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required.

Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

wv | Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form, 14NGI LIINISIa“s'n
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. WYd19
courtroom LE:L RY S2 NN 20
. i eresaaatd
ints ~ OF OS Aa cae
central Clerk's Office mailing deputy iis



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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 01 CR 1099
) LO,
MATTHEW LINTON, ) Y (a7
) by os
Defendant. ) Sage

MEMORANDUM_ORDER

Even though he has been and continues to be represented by
counsel, so that any pro se efforts on his part are
inappropriate, Matthew Linton (“Linton”) has filed a self-
prepared Motion To Dismiss “for violation of the speedy trail
[sic] act.” Although this Court might well reject that motion on
the ground that Linton lacks the authority so to proceed ina
case where he has a lawyer (see, e.g., such cases as United
States v. Kosmel, 272 F.3d 501, 506 (7 Cir. 2001)),* it will
nevertheless address the matter to head off any attempted further
pursuit of the subject by Linton.

Linton is just plain wrong as a substantive matter: Not
only has this Court consistently made ongoing appropriate

findings and orders as to excludable time under the Speedy Trial

+ This is not Linton's first effort to act on his own,

although his earlier filing (in which he complained about
differences with his appointed counsel and asked for new counsel)
was not subject to criticism because of its subject matter. No
opinion is of course expressed here as to the correctness or

incorrectness of Linton's earlier claim.



Act (18 U.S.C. §3161), but it has most recently ordered a
competency evaluation of Linton for good cause shown (a further
basis for exclusion--see 18 U.S.C. §3161(h) (1) (A)). As soon as
this Court is armed with the results of that evaluation, it
expects promptly to issue any appropriate further order in
Linton's case.

Thus whether or not Linton is in fact competent within the
meaning of 18 U.S.C. §4241, his current motion is ill-considered

and without merit. It is denied.

Ul DG ndove

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: June 24, 2002°