Filed: Dec. 02, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 02, 2014
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge. Presently pending before the court is defendant Reynaldo Garcia's motion to dismiss counts two, three, and four of the superseding information pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(b)(2). (ECF No. 11.) The motion was filed on November 19, 2014, and noticed for hearing on December 3, 2014. ( Id. ) On December 1, 2014, after the United States failed to file a timely opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss in accor
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge. Presently pending before the court is defendant Reynaldo Garcia's motion to dismiss counts two, three, and four of the superseding information pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(b)(2). (ECF No. 11.) The motion was filed on November 19, 2014, and noticed for hearing on December 3, 2014. ( Id. ) On December 1, 2014, after the United States failed to file a timely opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss in accord..
More
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Presently pending before the court is defendant Reynaldo Garcia's motion to dismiss counts two, three, and four of the superseding information pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(b)(2). (ECF No. 11.) The motion was filed on November 19, 2014, and noticed for hearing on December 3, 2014. (Id.) On December 1, 2014, after the United States failed to file a timely opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss in accordance with Local Rule 430.1(d), the court issued a minute order directing the United States to respond to the motion no later than 2:00 p.m. that same day. (ECF No. 21.) The court also required the United States to show cause in writing why it should not be sanctioned for failure to timely respond to defendant's motion. (Id.) That same day, before 2:00 p.m., the United States filed a statement of non-opposition, in which the United States itself moved to dismiss counts two, three, and four of the superseding information pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a). (ECF No. 22.) The United States also apologized for its oversight in failing to respond to defendant's motion in a timely manner. (Id.)
Although the court may have been required to evaluate the merits of defendant's motion under Rule 48(b)(2) regardless of the United States' statement of non-opposition, such an evaluation is unnecessary here in light of the United States' own motion to dismiss the counts at issue pursuant to Rule 48(a).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The United States' motion to dismiss counts two, three, and four of the superseding information pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) is GRANTED. As such, defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot.
2. The jury trial on count one of the superseding information (ECF No. 8) is confirmed for December 8, 2014, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 25 before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman.
3. The December 3, 2014 motion hearing is VACATED.
4. All other deadlines remain unchanged.
5. The order to show cause (ECF No. 21) is DISCHARGED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
