U.S. v. HEAD, 2:08-cr-00116-KJM. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20140403749
Visitors: 2
Filed: Apr. 01, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 01, 2014
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge. This matter is before the court on defendants' renewed motions to dismiss and for new trial under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 29 and 33, brought by Charles Head and Benjamin Budoff. (ECFs 511, 516.) The court previously denied these motions, made orally, without prejudice, for reasons stated on the record. ( See ECF 459.) 1 Defendants communicated their intention to renew the motions and stipulated with the government on a schedule for suppl
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge. This matter is before the court on defendants' renewed motions to dismiss and for new trial under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 29 and 33, brought by Charles Head and Benjamin Budoff. (ECFs 511, 516.) The court previously denied these motions, made orally, without prejudice, for reasons stated on the record. ( See ECF 459.) 1 Defendants communicated their intention to renew the motions and stipulated with the government on a schedule for supple..
More
ORDER
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.
This matter is before the court on defendants' renewed motions to dismiss and for new trial under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 29 and 33, brought by Charles Head and Benjamin Budoff. (ECFs 511, 516.) The court previously denied these motions, made orally, without prejudice, for reasons stated on the record. (See ECF 459.)1 Defendants communicated their intention to renew the motions and stipulated with the government on a schedule for supplemental briefing. However, defendants ultimately declined to provide any supplemental briefing or argument; instead, they simply renew the motions as they were originally brought. (ECFs 511, 516.) Therefore, the court DENIES defendants' renewed motions for the same reasons already stated on the record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Defendant Domonic McCarns was a party to the original motions. Because he was appointed new counsel after trial, defendant McCarns's new counsel and the government have stipulated to extend the time for defendant to file his post-trial Rule 29 and 33 motions. (ECF 547.) Therefore, the court does not include defendant McCarns in this order.
Source: Leagle
