NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

V.

ANDREW COX,

Defendant.

This matter comes before the Court by way of nine (9) motions filed by Defendant

Andrew Cox (“Defendant”) and his Defense Counsel, Mr. Michael Orozco, including: (1) Mr.

Orozco’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel [Docket Entry No. 84); (2) Defendant’s Pro Se Motion

for Leave to Appear Pro Se and for Appointment of Stand-By Counsel [Docket Entry No. 85];

(3) Defendant’s Pro Se Motion to Disqualify the Instant District Judge and for Entry of a New

District Judge [Docket Entry No. 86]; (4) Defendant’s Pro Se Motion to Produce Documents

from Pre-Trial Services [Docket Entry No. 87]; (5) Defendant’s Pro Se Motion to Dismiss the

Complaints and Indictments Filed Against Him With Prejudice [Docket Entry No. 88]; (6)

Defendant’s Pro Se Motion for Removal and Sanctioning of Government Counsel [Docket Entry

No. 89]; (7) Defendant’s Pro Se Motion for Disclosure regarding the Purported Sealing of his

Case [Docket Entry No. 90]; (8) Defendant’s Pro Se Motion to Produce Grand Jury Materials

[Docket Entry No. 92]; and (9) Defendant’s Pro Se Motion to Withdraw his Guilty Plea [Docket

Entry No. 95].

As seven (7) of Defendant’s Motions [Docket Entry Nos. 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92, and 95]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Criminal No.: 11-99 (JLL)

ORDER

I
were filed by Defendant prior to the resolution ofthe issue of his representation or selfrepresentation, this Court scheduled and held a hearing on April 30, 2012, concerning Motions

numbered (1) and (2), or, conjunctively, Defense Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and

Defendant’s Motion to Proceed Pro Se and Appoint Stand-By Counsel, in accordance with

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). The Court having considered the filings of the

Defendant, Defense Counsel, and the Government on said Motions, and for the reasons set forth

in the record,

IT IS on this 30th day of April, 2012,

ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Proceed Pro Se and for the Appointment of

Stand-by Counsel is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED that Defense Counsel Mr. Orozco’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel is also

GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED that the Court hereby appoints Michael Pedicini, Esq. as Stand-By Counsel

to Defendant in this matter; and it is further

ORDERED that Mr. Orozco contact the above-named Stand-By Counsel for the

expeditious transfer of Mr. Orozco’s entire file on the instant matter for Stand-By Counsel’s

delivery to the Defendant; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant’s improperly filed Motion for Release from Custody [Docket

Entry No. 78j, dismissed by this Court without prejudice to the refihing ofthe same by Defense

Counsel, or following a Faretta hearing, by Defendant proceeding pro se [Docket Entry No. 79],

is hereby REOPENED; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant’s pending Motions [Docket Entry No. 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92

2
and 95] shall be deemed filed in his capacity to proceed pro Se; and it is further

ORDERED that the Government shall have ten (10) days to file its opposition, if any, to

Defendant’s Motion for Release from Custody [Docket Entry No. 78]; and it is further

ORDERED that the Government shall have ten (10) days to file its opposition, if any, to

Defendant’s Motion to Disqualify the Instant District Judge and for Entry of a New District

Judge [Docket Entry No. 86]; and it is further

ORDERED that, following the determination Defendant’s Motions for Release and

Disqualification ofthe Instant Judge, a scheduling order regarding motion practice, if any, on

Defendants’ pending Motions will be issued; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant’s sentencing scheduled for May 22, 2012 is hereby

ADJOURNED pending resolution of Defendants’ Motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Linares

Unrted States District Judge

3