Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Source documents Order — No. 3:22-cr-00253 (Dkt. 103, W.D.N.C.)

Order — No. 3:22-cr-00253 (Dkt. 103, W.D.N.C.)

Summary

An order in United States v. Shavondra Michelle White (2), 3:22-CR-00253-RJC-DCK, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, filed August 1, 2024 as Document 103 (1 page) and signed July 31, 2024. The Court denies without prejudice the defendant's pro se motion for compassionate release (Doc. No. 94), agreeing with the government's response (Doc. No. 102) that the Court lacks jurisdiction because she filed a notice of appeal challenging the final Judgment (Doc. No. 76). The Clerk is directed to certify copies of the order to the defendant and the United States Attorney.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“Order — No. 3:22-cr-00253 (Dkt. 103, W.D.N.C.).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/order-no-3-22-cr-00253-dkt-103-w-d-n-c-3b11b6b96e/, SHA-256 542751ea4b4c8819345fd985734c2a556df23ee3bec3098482a060c7d1efd159.

Full text

                  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
              FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
                          CHARLOTTE DIVISION
                          3:22-CR-00253-RJC-DCK
 USA                          )
                              )
   v.                         )                             ORDER
                              )
 SHAVONDRA MICHELLE WHITE (2) )
                              )

       THIS MATTER is before the Court upon motion of the defendant pro se for

compassionate release, (Doc. No. 94), and the government’s response, (Doc. No. 102).

       The defendant filed a notice of appeal challenging the final Judgment

imposing a custodial sentence. (Doc. No. 76 at 1). The government rightly notes that

the Court does not have jurisdiction to grant the motion for compassionate release

from that sentence. See Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58,

(1982) (“The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it

confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its

control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.”). Therefore, the Court

will deny the motion. Fed. R. Crim. P. 37(a)(2).

       IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the defendant’s motion, (Doc. No.

94), is DENIED without prejudice.

       The Clerk is directed to certify copies of this Order to the defendant and the

United States Attorney.

  Signed: July 31, 2024




     Case 3:22-cr-00253-RJC-DCK Document 103 Filed 08/01/24 Page 1 of 1

File and source

File
103.pdf
Size
88,190 bytes
SHA-256
542751ea4b4c8819345fd985734c2a556df23ee3bec3098482a060c7d1efd159
Our copy
103.pdf
Original
No public link identified.
Back to top