U.S. v. HOGGE, 2:07-cr-00046-PPS (2014)
Court: District Court, N.D. Indiana
Number: infdco20140825826
Visitors: 11
Filed: Aug. 21, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 21, 2014
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER PHILIP P. SIMON, Chief District Judge. Defendant Jonathan Hogge filed motions challenging both the restitution order connected to his criminal conviction (DE 294) and a lien on his house filed by the government for the amount of the judgment that included the restitution order (DE 294). The government responded, and Hogge was given until August 27 to reply. (DE 310.) He then filed a motion to stay my decision on his motions pending the outcome of his appeal to the Seventh Ci
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER PHILIP P. SIMON, Chief District Judge. Defendant Jonathan Hogge filed motions challenging both the restitution order connected to his criminal conviction (DE 294) and a lien on his house filed by the government for the amount of the judgment that included the restitution order (DE 294). The government responded, and Hogge was given until August 27 to reply. (DE 310.) He then filed a motion to stay my decision on his motions pending the outcome of his appeal to the Seventh Cir..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
PHILIP P. SIMON, Chief District Judge.
Defendant Jonathan Hogge filed motions challenging both the restitution order connected to his criminal conviction (DE 294) and a lien on his house filed by the government for the amount of the judgment that included the restitution order (DE 294). The government responded, and Hogge was given until August 27 to reply. (DE 310.) He then filed a motion to stay my decision on his motions pending the outcome of his appeal to the Seventh Circuit. (DE 311.) I don't see the connection: if the Seventh Circuit's decision ultimately requires me to do anything differently, the Seventh Circuit will give me my marching orders. Until then, I can decide whether to vacate the restitution order and the lien as they currently stand based on the parties' briefing. Hogge's motion to stay my decision on his previous two motions is therefore DENIED. (DE 311.) Because Hogge seems to have filed the motion to stay in lieu of a reply, his deadline to reply, should he choose to do so, is extended to September 3, 2014.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
