United States v. Pereda, 2:11-cr-119-05 WBS KJN. (2020)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20200305a22
Visitors: 3
Filed: Mar. 04, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 04, 2020
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . On March 2, 2020, defendant Danny Pereda filed two motions for nunc pro tunc sentencing. 1 (Docket Nos. 344, 345.) The United States shall file any opposition to defendant's motions no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this order. Defendant may file a reply no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of the filing of the United States' opposition. The court will then take the motions under submission and will inform the parties if
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . On March 2, 2020, defendant Danny Pereda filed two motions for nunc pro tunc sentencing. 1 (Docket Nos. 344, 345.) The United States shall file any opposition to defendant's motions no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this order. Defendant may file a reply no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of the filing of the United States' opposition. The court will then take the motions under submission and will inform the parties if o..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.
On March 2, 2020, defendant Danny Pereda filed two motions for nunc pro tunc sentencing.1 (Docket Nos. 344, 345.) The United States shall file any opposition to defendant's motions no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this order. Defendant may file a reply no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of the filing of the United States' opposition. The court will then take the motions under submission and will inform the parties if oral argument or further proceedings are necessary
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The two motions have different handwriting, and the second motion includes defendant's signature and one additional page stating that the defendant was including a "missing signature copy" of the motion. The two motions otherwise appear to be identical.
Source: Leagle
