U.S. v. HOANG AI LE, 2:99-00433-07 WBS. (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20160526934
Visitors: 12
Filed: May 25, 2016
Latest Update: May 25, 2016
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . On May 19, 2016, petitioner Hoang Ai Le filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. (Docket No. 1706.) The United States shall file an opposition to petitioner's motion no later than June 24, 2016. Petitioner may then file a reply no later than July 8, 2016. The court will then take the motion under submission and will inform the parties if oral argument or further proceedings are necessary. On the same day, Hoang Ai Le filed a pro se motion "to
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . On May 19, 2016, petitioner Hoang Ai Le filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. (Docket No. 1706.) The United States shall file an opposition to petitioner's motion no later than June 24, 2016. Petitioner may then file a reply no later than July 8, 2016. The court will then take the motion under submission and will inform the parties if oral argument or further proceedings are necessary. On the same day, Hoang Ai Le filed a pro se motion "to ..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.
On May 19, 2016, petitioner Hoang Ai Le filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Docket No. 1706.) The United States shall file an opposition to petitioner's motion no later than June 24, 2016. Petitioner may then file a reply no later than July 8, 2016. The court will then take the motion under submission and will inform the parties if oral argument or further proceedings are necessary.
On the same day, Hoang Ai Le filed a pro se motion "to adopt or join all co-defendants' motions to dismiss." (Docket No. 1705.) In an Order dated April 18, 2016, the court previously dismissed a similar motion made by defendant's counsel because the motion was not cognizable under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3). (See Docket No. 1696.) The court will therefore deny defendant's motion to dismiss (Docket No. 1705) for the same reasons stated in that Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
