Thornton v. United States of America, No. 2:2012cv00245 - Document 125 (S.D.W. Va. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying petitioner's 124 MOTION for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 6/6/2012. (cc: attys; petitioner; United States Magistrate Judge) (tmh)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON RANDY L. THORNTON, Petitioner v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-00245 (Criminal No. 2:04-00225) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending is petitioner's motion for rehearing of his request for a writ of error coram nobis, filed May 25, 2012. Petitioner essentially seeks the expunction of his $5,000 fine and release from custody. This action was previously referred to the Honorable Mary E. Stanley, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission to the court of her Proposed Findings and Recommendation ( PF&R ) for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. 13, 2012, the magistrate judge filed her PF&R. On March In its Judgment and accompanying memorandum opinion and order entered May 2, 2012, the court adopted the magistrate judge's PF&R. The court concluded that petitioner failed to demonstrate the demanding elements attached to a request for the writ to issue or to seek a modification of the fine payment schedule pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3572(d)(3). Nevertheless, the court construed one limited portion of the petition as a motion to modify the payment schedule pursuant to section 3572(d)(3). So construed to that confined extent, the court ordered that the payment schedule found in the Judgment should be reduced in amount from the rate of $25 per month to the rate of $25 per quarter, a sum that, as the court noted, petitioner has demonstrated a proven ability to pay over time.1 In his motion for rehearing, petitioner asserts that he "was able to make quarterly [payments] only at the expense of most everything els[e]." (Mot. at 1). Irrespective of this assertion, petitioner has not sought relief pursuant to section 3572(d)(3) and has not satisfied the requirements for the writ to issue. The court, accordingly, ORDERS that the motion for rehearing be, and it hereby is, denied. 1 According to the payment schedule attached to petitioner's objections, he has made a $25 payment for each quarter that has elapsed since December 2009. 2 The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this written opinion and order to the petitioner, all counsel of record, and the United States Magistrate Judge. DATED: June 6, 2012 John T. Copenhaver, Jr. United States District Judge 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
