Order — United States v. Adam Winston James

Record facts

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Oklahoma · No. 4:20-cr-00327-GKF · Doc. 25 · 2021-04-09 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
 
)  
Case No. 20-CR-327-JED 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  
  
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
)  
ADAM WINSTON JAMES,  
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
Defendant. 
 
 
) 
 
ORDER 
 
On January 20, 2021, the Court held a hearing on what it thought was a change of plea for 
Defendant Adam James, but instead, Defendant told the Court that he wished to retain new counsel. 
The Court granted Defendant’s request. On February 3, 2021, Donte Mills filed a Request for 
Admission Pro Hac Vice (Doc. 18) because he was not licensed to practice in this Court. The Court 
denied the request because Mr. Mills did not follow the Court’s local rules for requesting 
temporary admission. Namely, Mr. Mills did not file a motion for admission pro hac vice, but 
rather, merely filed the request for admission form that is supposed to be attached to his motion. 
See LGnR4-2(g).  
 
This was an honest mistake, and the Court simply asked Mr. Mills to correct it. See (Doc. 
19). After Mr. Mills failed to correct his mistake, the Court entered a minute order directing Mr. 
Mills to file a motion with his request for admission pro hac vice “if he intends to proceed in this 
matter as counsel for defendant.” (Doc. 24). Mr. Mills has not responded to that minute order, nor 
has he answered or returned the multiple phone calls the Court has made to him over the past 
month regarding this issue.  
Case 4:20-cr-00327-GKF     Document 25 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 04/09/21     Page 1 of 2

2 
 
 
Accordingly, this Court directs Mr. Mills to comply with its local rules for admission pro 
hac vice within seven (7) days of the filing of this order. If Mr. Mills does not comply, the Court 
will exercise its authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3162 to sanction him. See 18 U.S.C. § 3162 
(authorizing, among other things, the court to impose a fine of up to “25 per centum of the 
compensation to which [defendant’s counsel] is entitled” for “willfully fail[ing] to proceed to trial 
without justification”). Further, if the problem persists, the Court will exercise its authority to 
replace Mr. Mills with new counsel. See United States v. Mendoza-Salgado, 964 F.2d 992, 1015 
(10th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he court must respect a defendant’s choice of retained counsel “unless it 
would unreasonably delay proceedings or burden the court with retained counsel who was 
incompetent or unwilling to abide by court rules or ethical guidelines.” (quoting United States v. 
Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 626 (10th Cir. 1990))). 
SO ORDERED, this 9th day of April, 2021. 
 
 
  
Case 4:20-cr-00327-GKF     Document 25 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 04/09/21     Page 2 of 2

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.oknd.55930.25.0.pdf

Size

197,401 bytes

SHA-256

77014c599721f16794be59a61070ea7103b6c5236eb0b2497ba6862649641f16

Our copy

gov.uscourts.oknd.55930.25.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)