Holmes v. Williams et al
Filing
18
ORDER Denying 7 Motion from 3 order and 5 judgment. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 2/4/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8
9
ROBERT HOLMES, III,
10
Petitioner,
11
vs.
12
BRIAN WILLIAMS, et al.,
13
Case No. 2:12-cv-00354-KJD-RJJ
Respondents.
ORDER
14
15
Before the court are petitioner’s motion for relief from order and judgment (#7),
16
respondents’ opposition (#12), and petitioner’s reply (#15). For the reasons stated below, the court
17
denies the motion.
18
First, petitioner argues that the court erred in its determination that the restriction on
19
probation contained in Nev. Rev. Stat. § 205.060(2) applied to him.1 That statute provides, with
20
emphasis added:
21
24
Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person convicted of burglary is guilty of a
category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum
term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 10 years, and may be
further punished by a fine of not more than $10,000. A person who is convicted of burglary
and who has previously been convicted of burglary or another crime involving the forcible
entry or invasion of a dwelling must not be released on probation or granted a suspension of
sentence.
25
Petitioner does not persuade the court that the emphasized portion of the statute applied to him. At
26
the time of sentencing, he had not previously been convicted of burglary. Furthermore, all of the
22
23
27
1
28
To summarize petitioner’s argument in the petition, his plea agreement was void because it
stated that he was eligible for probation but the probation bar in § 205.060(2) applied to him.
1
prior crimes that petitioner describes in his petition and in his motion for relief involve entries into
2
business establishments, not dwellings. See, e.g., Motion for relief, at 8-9 (#7). Petitioner claims in
3
a conclusory fashion that he has forcibly entered or invaded dwellings, but his own factual
4
allegations do not bear out those claims.
5
Petitioner’s remaining arguments are disagreements with the court’s ruling, and they are not
6
appropriate for reconsideration. See Plotkin v. Pacific Tel. and Tel. Co., 688 F.2d 1291, 1293 (9th
7
Cir. 1982).
8
9
10
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for relief from order and judgment
(#7) is DENIED.
DATED: February 4, 2013
11
12
_________________________________
KENT J. DAWSON
United States District Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
