U.S. v. CARTAGENA, 6:14-cr-211-Orl-22TBS. (2016)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20160112982
Visitors: 21
Filed: Jan. 08, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 08, 2016
Summary: ORDER THOMAS B. SMITH , Magistrate Judge . This case comes before the Court on Defendant Dairo Cartagena's Motion to Exceed Cap for Investigative Costs (Doc. 200). For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED without prejudice . The motion does not contain a concise statement of the precise relief requested. It does not state the pertinent facts, explain the procedural posture of the case, show that Defendant has complied with all procedural requirements to obtain the relief he is requ
Summary: ORDER THOMAS B. SMITH , Magistrate Judge . This case comes before the Court on Defendant Dairo Cartagena's Motion to Exceed Cap for Investigative Costs (Doc. 200). For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED without prejudice . The motion does not contain a concise statement of the precise relief requested. It does not state the pertinent facts, explain the procedural posture of the case, show that Defendant has complied with all procedural requirements to obtain the relief he is reque..
More
ORDER
THOMAS B. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.
This case comes before the Court on Defendant Dairo Cartagena's Motion to Exceed Cap for Investigative Costs (Doc. 200). For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED without prejudice.
The motion does not contain a concise statement of the precise relief requested. It does not state the pertinent facts, explain the procedural posture of the case, show that Defendant has complied with all procedural requirements to obtain the relief he is requesting, or explain why he should be excused from compliance with those requirements. Defendant's entire memorandum of law states: "Pursuant to Rule 3.01 of the Local Rules for the Middle District of Florida, the Court has the discretion to grant a motion. Under the circumstances here, the Court should exercise its discretion and grant the motion." (Id.). Defendant will have to explain this contention because it does not comport with the Court's understanding of Rule 3.01.
DONE and ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
