U.S. v. BOGGS PAVING, INC., 3:13-cr-00204-MOC. (2015)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20151106b21
Visitors: 12
Filed: Nov. 05, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 05, 2015
Summary: ORDER MAX O. COGBURN, Jr. , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the court on the parties' request for in-chambers conference. After conducting such in-chambers conference, the court enters the following Order: ORDER IT IS ORDERED that the court's previous Order (#228) is WITHDRAWN , the Motion for Coordinated Sentencing Date (#222) is again termed, the dates for sentencing remain as previously noticed, and the parties shall file their respective sentencing briefs and any exhibits or
Summary: ORDER MAX O. COGBURN, Jr. , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the court on the parties' request for in-chambers conference. After conducting such in-chambers conference, the court enters the following Order: ORDER IT IS ORDERED that the court's previous Order (#228) is WITHDRAWN , the Motion for Coordinated Sentencing Date (#222) is again termed, the dates for sentencing remain as previously noticed, and the parties shall file their respective sentencing briefs and any exhibits or ..
More
ORDER
MAX O. COGBURN, Jr., District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the court on the parties' request for in-chambers conference. After conducting such in-chambers conference, the court enters the following Order:
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the court's previous Order (#228) is WITHDRAWN, the Motion for Coordinated Sentencing Date (#222) is again termed, the dates for sentencing remain as previously noticed, and the parties shall file their respective sentencing briefs and any exhibits or letters of support (subject to the previous instructions concerning non-attachment to the sealed sentencing memoranda and proper methodology for any sealing under LCrR 55.1) not later than November 13, 2015, with no page limitations. The court will, at a later date, enter an Order and/or provide notice of a date for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of Loss Amount as to all defendants (except Defendant Mann) and, if so desired by Defendant Boggs and the government, application of the § 3B1.1(a) enhancement as to Defendant Andrew Boggs.
Pretrial Services Officer Baker is advised that no additional review by USPO is necessary for objections briefed in such memoranda.
Source: Leagle
