CRIMINAL ACTION NO.: 3:10-cr-00151-BAJ-SCR
RULING AND ORDER
Considering Petitioner's pro se MOTION (Doc. 97), requesting that the "court appoint [an] attorney to defendant's case to file write [sic] of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court," (id. at p. 1):
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion (Doc. 97) is DENIED AS MOOT because the 90-day period for filing a petition for review with the Supreme Court has since expired. See Madden v. Texas, 498 U.S. 1301, 1304 (1991).
The record reflects that Petitioner was represented by counsel at the time she filed her Motion. (See Doc. 84; Doc. 85; Doc. 86). Petitioner's Motion offers no explanation for why her retained counsel was unable to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. (See generally Doc. 97).
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 30th day of April, 2014.
BRIAN A. JACKSON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA