Nasher-Alneam v. United States of America, No. 2:2021cv00360 - Document 343 (S.D.W. Va. 2021)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER SEALING DOCUMENT; granting Respondents 342 MOTION to Seal Exhibit as to Muhammed Samer Nasher-Alneam; directing Exhibit 1 of Respondents Response be filed as sealed; The Clerk is directed to file Exhibit 1, (ECF No. 342-2), as sealed and made a part of Respondents Response. (ECF No. 341). Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 8/30/2021. (cc: movant and counsel of record) (tmr)

Download PDF
Nasher-Alneam v. United States of America Doc. 343 Case 2:21-cv-00360 Document 343 Filed 08/30/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 247 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION MUHAMMED SAMER NASHER-ALNEAM, Movant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00360 Case No. 2:18-cr-00151 v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER SEALING DOCUMENT Pending is Respondent’s Motion to Seal Exhibit, (ECF No. 342), requesting to file under seal, its Exhibit 1 to be attached to Respondent’s Response to Movant’s Motion to Vacate Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. According to Respondent, Exhibit 1 to the Response contains sensitive information, which has been designated as confidential by Respondent. Due to the highly sensitive nature of Exhibit 1, the Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS Exhibit 1 of Respondent’s Response be filed as SEALED. The Clerk is directed to file Exhibit 1, (ECF No. 342-2), as sealed and made a part of Respondent’s Response. (ECF No. 341). The undersigned is cognizant of the well-established Fourth Circuit precedent recognizing a presumption in favor of public access to judicial records. Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2000). As stated in Ashcraft, before sealing a document, the Court must follow a three step process: (1) provide public notice of the request to seal; (2) consider less drastic alternatives to sealing the document; and (3) Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:21-cv-00360 Document 343 Filed 08/30/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 248 provide specific reasons and factual findings supporting its decision to seal the documents and for rejecting alternatives. Id. at 302. In this case, the attached document shall be sealed and will be designated as sealed on the Court’s docket. The Court deems this sufficient notice to interested members of the public. The Court has considered less drastic alternatives to sealing Exhibit 1, but no alternatives to sealing the document are feasible. Moreover, the public’s right to be informed is greatly outweighed by the interests to be protected in this circumstance. Accordingly, the Court finds that sealing Exhibit 1 to Respondent’s Response does not unduly prejudice the public’s right to access court documents. The Clerk is instructed to provide a copy of this Order to the Movant and all counsel of record. ENTERED: August 30, 2021

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.