IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

) CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 05-0267-KD-N 

v. ) 

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-0116-KD-N 

CLENNON PREYEAR, ) 

) 

Petitioner. ) 

ORDER

 Petitioner Clennon Preyear has filed a Motion (doc. 568) seeking copies of certain 

documents from the court file. Preyear currently seeks copies of three documents evidencing 

Petitioner’s written consent to the Magistrate Judge’s supervision of jury selection (docs. 174, 

209, 221).1 

In addition, he also requests copies of documents 127 [a Motion to Suppress filed by a 

co-defendant], 141 [the government’s response to defendant’s motion for separate hearings to 

determine conspiracy], 176 [the order referring jury selection to Magistrate Judge Bivens], 208 

[preyear’s Notice of Alaibi Defense], 209 [order of reference of jury selection to Magistrate 

Judge], 210 [Preyear’s Motion to Sever], 223 [co-defendant’s Motion to Reconsider Batson 

ruling], 224 [co-defendant’s Motion forMistrial], 225 [Order setting hearing on Motion for 

 1

 Petitioner seeks the documents in order to prove that, in at least one such document, he 

did not give consent for Magistrate Judge Cassady to conduct jury selection, “but only to the 

Magistrate Judge (Callie V.S. Granade).” Petitioner’s argument is flawed, in that Judge Granade 

is a District Judge, not a Magistrate Judge. Indeed, at the time of the consent, she was the Chief 

United States District Judge of this court, and was the District Judge assigned to Preyear’s 

criminal case. As such, no consent was required to allow her to conduct jury selection. Contary 

to his confused challenge, a review of each of the three documents clearly shows Preyear’s 

signature and that of his attorney on the court’s form for parties to consent to allow jury selection 

to be conducted by a Magistrate Judge. Nor can the court discern any reason why Preyear would 

want to show that he had “only” consented twice instead of three times. 

Case 1:05-cr-00267-KD-B Document 572 Filed 06/21/10 Page 1 of 3
Mistrial], 227 [order modifying conditions of release for petitioner], 232 [a minute entry that 

telephone hearing was held on May 18, 2006], and 234 [order granting mistrial]. Petitioner 

states that his list of documents is taken from his original motion for copies (doc. 523); the 

court’s order on that motion2

 had pointed out that the list contained documents related to other 

defendants and at least one typographical error, and had ordered petitioner to submit a corrected 

list. To that end, the court sent petitioner a copy of the docket sheet in his case. His failure to 

correct the list and his continued reiteration of that list violates the court’s prior order. Further, 

most of the requested documents have no conceivable relevance to the issues timely raised in 

Preyear’s habeas motion. 

 Nonetheless, the court hereby DIRECTS the Clerk to send to petitioner, at public 

expense, the three documents in which he consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge to 

conduct jury selection, identified as documents 174, 209, and 221. As the undersigned has 

reviewed the documents and finds no possible manner in which those documents could be used 

to affect the determination of the issues properly raised in this action, the court will allow only a 

brief opportunity for petitioner to offer supplemental argument based upon these documents. It 

is hereby ORDERED that, no later than July 1, 2010, petitioner may submit additional argument 

based on these three documents, if he finds any aspect of the documents he believes support his 

position. The court will take the pending habeas motion under advisement immediately 

thereafter. Alternatively, Preyear may address the documents in an objection to the Report and 

 2

 The court granted in part (doc. 532) Preyear’s motion (doc. 523) to allow Preyear’s 

friend to obtain copies of certain documents from the Clerk of the court. However, claiming 

that he had not yet received the order, petitioner thereafter (doc. 552, ftn. 4) stated that he no 

longer wished to ask his friend to get the copies for him and requested that the court mail him the 

copies without charge. 

Case 1:05-cr-00267-KD-B Document 572 Filed 06/21/10 Page 2 of 3
Recommendation. 

 ORDERED this the 21st day of June, 2010. 

 /s/ Katherine P. Nelson 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cr-00267-KD-B Document 572 Filed 06/21/10 Page 3 of 3