United States v. Howard, 3:19-CR-83-PLR-HBG. (2020)
Court: District Court, E.D. Tennessee
Number: infdco20200225d72
Visitors: 28
Filed: Feb. 24, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 24, 2020
Summary: ORDER H. BRUCE GUYTON , Magistrate Judge . All pretrial motions in this case have been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b) for disposition or report and recommendation regarding disposition by the District Court as may be appropriate. On January 22, 2020, Chief United States District Judge Pamela L. Reeves denied [Doc. 38] Defendant Howard's motion to suppress the evidence seized during a stop and search of his car on February 26, 2019. The Defendant's four, non-disp
Summary: ORDER H. BRUCE GUYTON , Magistrate Judge . All pretrial motions in this case have been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b) for disposition or report and recommendation regarding disposition by the District Court as may be appropriate. On January 22, 2020, Chief United States District Judge Pamela L. Reeves denied [Doc. 38] Defendant Howard's motion to suppress the evidence seized during a stop and search of his car on February 26, 2019. The Defendant's four, non-dispo..
More
ORDER
H. BRUCE GUYTON, Magistrate Judge.
All pretrial motions in this case have been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) for disposition or report and recommendation regarding disposition by the District Court as may be appropriate. On January 22, 2020, Chief United States District Judge Pamela L. Reeves denied [Doc. 38] Defendant Howard's motion to suppress the evidence seized during a stop and search of his car on February 26, 2019. The Defendant's four, non-dispositive pretrial motions [Docs. 14, 16, 17, & 19] remain pending before the undersigned.1 On February 20, 2020, the Government filed a plea agreement [Doc. 39], signed by the Defendant and counsel, in the record. The Court finds that the parties have entered into a plea agreement, are no longer proceeding to trial, and, thus, are no longer seek a ruling on the pending pretrial motions. Accordingly, the Defendant's pending pretrial motions [Docs. 14, 16, 17, & 19] are DENIED as moot. The denial of these motions is without prejudice to refile, after gaining permission of the Court upon a showing of good cause.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The Court observes that the requests in these motions for early disclosure of 404(b) evidence, impeachment evidence, and Jencks Act materials are largely addressed by the Court's Order on Discovery and Scheduling [Doc. 7]. Additionally, at the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing on the suppression motion, defense counsel did not desire to argue the non-dispositive motions, stating "[t]o the extent that there is any follow-up with the request for additional discovery, I'll just work that out with [the prosecutor], to the extent it needs to be worked out" [Doc. 32, Trans. of Aug. 29, 2019 hearing, p.93]. The Government also declined argument on these motions.
Source: Leagle
