Order The Emergency Motion for Compassionate Release — USA v. Lattany (Dkt. 78, D. Colo.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado · No. 1:23-cr-00074-NYW · Doc. 78 · 2024-08-06 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 
Judge Nina Y. Wang 
 
Criminal Case No. 23-cr-00074-NYW-1 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  
 
Plaintiff,  
 
v.  
 
1.  
DEJANE REANIECE LATTANY, 
 
Defendant.  
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
This matter comes before the Court on the Emergency Motion for Compassionate 
Release (“Motion for Release”), [Doc. 76], and Motion to Request Hearing on Emergency 
Compassionate Release Motion (“Motion to Request Hearing” and together, “Motions”), 
[Doc. 77], filed on behalf of Dejane Reaniece Lattany (“Dejane Lattany”) by her mother, 
Jaraine Lattany (“Jaraine Lattany”),1 on August 1 and 2, 2024, respectively.  For the 
following reasons, the Court respectfully STRIKES the Motions.  
BACKGROUND 
  
On March 3, 2023, Dejane Lattany was charged by Information with one count of 
wire fraud pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1343.  [Doc. 1].  The following week, private counsel 
– Jason Flores-Williams (“Mr. Flores-Williams”) – entered an appearance on her behalf 
and filed a Waiver of Indictment.  [Doc. 3; Doc. 5].  The next day, Dejane Lattany, through 
Mr. Flores-Williams, filed a Notice of Disposition.  [Doc. 8].  In advance of her Change of 
 
1 For purposes of clarity, the Court uses Dejane Lattany’s and Jaraine Lattany’s first and 
last names throughout this Order.  
Case No. 1:23-cr-00074-NYW     Document 78     filed 08/06/24     USDC Colorado     pg 1
of 6

2 
 
Plea hearing, Dejane Lattany executed a Plea Agreement with the United States and a 
Statement in Advance of Plea of Guilty.  [Doc. 13; Doc. 14].  She appeared before the 
Court for a Change of Plea hearing on April 26, 2023, during which the Court advised her 
of her constitutional rights and the consequences of pleading guilty.  [Doc. 12].   
The Parties agreed, and the Court found, that the applicable guideline calculation 
was 24, with a criminal history category of I, resulting in an advisory sentencing guideline 
range of 51-63 months.  [Doc. 13].  In her Sentencing Memorandum, Dejane Lattany, 
through counsel, advocated for a sentence of incarceration of 45 months.  [Doc 19 at 3].  
The United States advocated for a sentence of incarceration of 51 months.  On August 
15, 2023, this Court sentenced Dejane Lattany to 48 months’ imprisonment, to be 
followed by three years of supervised release.  [Doc. 25 at 2; Doc. 27].  On August 21, 
2023, Mr. Flores-Williams moved to withdraw as counsel which the Court granted.  [Doc. 
26; Doc. 29].   
After granting two extensions, see [Doc. 41; Doc. 44], the Court ordered Dejane 
Lattany to self-surrender to federal custody on November 30, 2023.  See [Doc. 45]; see 
also [Doc. 53 (permitting Dejane Lattany to self-surrender in Denver, Colorado)].  On 
November 13, 2023, Dejane Lattany filed a pro se Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct 
Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (“§ 2255 Motion”).  See [Doc. 46].2  Her § 2255 
Motion remains pending before the Court.  After the Court denied Dejane Lattany’s 
request for continued release pending resolution of the § 2255 Motion, see [Doc. 55; Doc. 
56], Dejane Lattany surrendered to federal custody on November 30, 2023.  Dejane 
Lattany remains in the custody of the federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”).   
 
2 On February 5, 2024, Dejane Lattany filed an “Amended 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Motion]” 
[Doc. 62], which this Court construes as a supplement to the § 2255 Motion.   
Case No. 1:23-cr-00074-NYW     Document 78     filed 08/06/24     USDC Colorado     pg 2
of 6

3 
 
ANALYSIS 
Presently before the Court are the Motion for Release and Motion to Request 
Hearing.  See [Doc. 76; Doc. 77].  The Motion for Release is signed by Jaraine Lattany 
“on behalf of Dejane Lattany.”  [Doc. 76 at 6].  An attachment to the Motion for Release 
for “Medical Records and Additional Medical Information” is also signed by Jaraine 
Lattany “on behalf of Dejane Lattany.”  See [id. at 14].3  Exhibit 1(A) to the Motion for 
Release is a “Power of Attorney” granting Jaraine Lattany power of attorney to “speak to 
all judges on [Dejane Lattany’s] behalf, including going before all judges concerning all 
aspects of all of [Dejane Lattany’s] criminal cases,” and to “make decisions and ask 
anything, including submission of motions on [Dejane Lattany’s] behalf concerning all 
criminal cases.”  [Id. at 18].   
In the Motion to Request Hearing, Jaraine Lattany asks the Court to grant her 
request for an ex parte hearing “with the Defendant Dejane Lattany and Power of Attorney 
Jaraine Lattany in regards to the ‘Emergency Compassionate of Release’ motion” filed 
on August 1, 2024.  [Doc. 77 at 1].  The Motion to Request Hearing is signed by Jaraine 
Lattany “on behalf of Dejane Lattany” and the address block includes a residential 
address in Denver, Colorado – not Dejane Lattany’s address of record at the Federal 
Medical Center in Fort Worth, Texas.  See [Doc. 72].  Likewise, in the Certificate of 
Service attached to the Motion to Request Hearing, Jaraine Lattany is listed as Dejane 
Lattany’s “Attorney” and specifically, her “Power of Attorney.”  [Doc. 77 at 3].   
 
3 While a “Proposed Release Plan” attachment to the Motion for Release provides only 
Dejane Lattany’s name (and not “Jaraine Lattany on behalf of Dejane Lattany”), the 
Court notes that the signature attached to the Proposed Release Plan also appears to 
belong to Jaraine Lattany.  Compare [Doc. 76 at 12], with [id. at 6, 14].   
Case No. 1:23-cr-00074-NYW     Document 78     filed 08/06/24     USDC Colorado     pg 3
of 6

4 
 
The authorization to act under a power of attorney is not an authorization to 
practice law.  Sanders v. Funk, No. 07-CV-00192LT, 2007 WL 1158531, at *3 (D. Colo. 
Apr. 6, 2007) (collecting cases).  Both state and federal courts agree that a statutory 
power of attorney may not be used to circumvent state law prohibitions on the 
unauthorized practice of law.  See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (federal law allows two types 
of representation in court: that by an attorney admitted to the practice of law by the 
applicable regulatory body, and that by a person representing himself); Harris v. 
Philadelphia Police Dep’t, No. 06-CV-2192, No. 06-CV-2192, 2006 WL 3025882 (E.D. 
Pa. Oct. 20, 2006) (“[F]ederal courts do not permit a non-attorney to engage in the 
unauthorized practice of law by pursuing an action pro se with the plaintiff’s power of 
attorney.”); DePonceau v. Pataki, 315 F. Supp. 2d 338, 341 (W.D.N.Y. 2004) (authority 
conferred on another by a power of attorney could not be used to circumscribe state laws 
that prohibit the practice of law by anyone other than a licensed attorney).  Here, 
notwithstanding Jaraine Lattany’s status as power of attorney for Dejane Lattany, nothing 
in the record supports a finding that Jaraine Lattany is an attorney licensed to practice 
law.  Indeed, this Court has confirmed that Jaraine Lattany is not a member of the District 
of Colorado bar.  See https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/CMECF/AttorneyStatus.aspx. 
In addition, Jaraine Lattany is not a party to this action.  Even if she were, “it is well 
established that a pro se litigant may not represent another party in federal court.”  Leal 
v. Diaz, No. 17-CV-00946-PAB-SKC, 2019 WL 2060852, at *2 (D. Colo. May 9, 2019) 
(collecting cases); Perry v. Stout, 20 F. App’x 780, 782 (10th Cir. 2001) (“Non-attorney 
pro se litigants cannot represent other pro se parties.”); Herrera-Venegas v. Sanchez-
Rivera, 681 F.2d 41, 42 (1st Cir. 1982) (“By law an individual may appear in federal courts 
Case No. 1:23-cr-00074-NYW     Document 78     filed 08/06/24     USDC Colorado     pg 4
of 6

5 
 
only pro se or through legal counsel.”); Matthews v. Cordeiro, 144 F. Supp. 2d 37, 38 (D. 
Mass. 2001) (“Under well-settled law, an individual who is not an attorney admitted to 
practice before this court is not authorized to submit pleadings (including a complaint) or 
in any other manner appear on behalf of another person or entity.”).   
While this Court acknowledges the challenges faced by Dejane Lattany, Jaraine 
Lattany lacks authority to submit filings on Dejane Lattany’s behalf.  Even though Dejane 
Lattany proceeds pro se, she is still bound by the same procedural rules and substantive 
law.  See Murray v. City of Tahlequah, 312 F.3d 1196, 1199 n.2 (10th Cir. 2008). 
Accordingly, the Court STRIKES the Motion for Release and Motion to Request Hearing 
as unauthorized filings.  As a matter of courtesy, this Court will provide a copy of this 
Order to Jaraine Lattany. 
CONCLUSION 
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:  
(1) 
The Emergency Motion for Compassionate Release is STRICKEN;  
 
(2) 
The Motion to Request Hearing on Emergency Compassionate Release 
Motion is STRICKEN; and 
  
(3) 
A copy of this Order shall be sent to: 
 
Dejane Reaniece Lattany  
Inmate No. 51090-510 
P.O. Box 27137 
Federal Medical Center  
Fort Worth, Texas 76127 
 
Jaraine Lattany 
14475 Robins Drive 
Denver, Colorado 80239 
 
 
 
Case No. 1:23-cr-00074-NYW     Document 78     filed 08/06/24     USDC Colorado     pg 5
of 6

6 
 
DATED:  August 6, 2024  
 
 
BY THE COURT:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
________________________  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nina Y. Wang 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
United States District Judge 
 
Case No. 1:23-cr-00074-NYW     Document 78     filed 08/06/24     USDC Colorado     pg 6
of 6

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cod.223008.78.0.pdf

Size

138,868 bytes

SHA-256

bb5a156bdaabe4fd459512073816db1cdb7abd761b798b66ab2884395a9b6f70

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cod.223008.78.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)