CLARK v. U.S., 3:11CV623-FDW. (2012)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20120413832
Visitors: 25
Filed: Apr. 12, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 12, 2012
Summary: ORDER FRANK D. WHITNEY, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Petitioner's Motion for Relief Requested on Petitioner's Motion to Vacate, (Doc. No. 12). In support of the motion, Petitioner contends that the government failed to file a response to Petitioner's Motion to Vacate as ordered by the Court. Petitioner is simply incorrect, as the government filed a motion to dismiss on April 3, 2012, after receiving an extension of time from the Court. Thus, the Court will deny Petit
Summary: ORDER FRANK D. WHITNEY, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Petitioner's Motion for Relief Requested on Petitioner's Motion to Vacate, (Doc. No. 12). In support of the motion, Petitioner contends that the government failed to file a response to Petitioner's Motion to Vacate as ordered by the Court. Petitioner is simply incorrect, as the government filed a motion to dismiss on April 3, 2012, after receiving an extension of time from the Court. Thus, the Court will deny Petiti..
More
ORDER
FRANK D. WHITNEY, District Judge.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Petitioner's Motion for Relief Requested on Petitioner's Motion to Vacate, (Doc. No. 12). In support of the motion, Petitioner contends that the government failed to file a response to Petitioner's Motion to Vacate as ordered by the Court. Petitioner is simply incorrect, as the government filed a motion to dismiss on April 3, 2012, after receiving an extension of time from the Court. Thus, the Court will deny Petitioner's Motion for Relief Requested on Petitioner's Motion to Vacate.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
(1) Petitioner's Motion for Relief Requested on Petitioner's Motion to Vacate, (Doc. No. 12), is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
