Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ, 2:15-cr-59-FtM-38DNF. (2015)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20150526c84 Visitors: 31
Filed: May 22, 2015
Latest Update: May 22, 2015
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on review of the docket. On May 15, 2015, the Court erred and denied Defendant's Motion to Strike the Government's request for a Stay as premature. Therefore, the Endorsed Order (Doc. #20) entered on May 15, 2015 is vacated. Nevertheless, because it appears that Defendant was released from custody shortly after the detention hearing on May 14, 2015, and prior to the Court having an opportunity to rule on
More

ORDER1

This matter comes before the Court on review of the docket. On May 15, 2015, the Court erred and denied Defendant's Motion to Strike the Government's request for a Stay as premature. Therefore, the Endorsed Order (Doc. #20) entered on May 15, 2015 is vacated. Nevertheless, because it appears that Defendant was released from custody shortly after the detention hearing on May 14, 2015, and prior to the Court having an opportunity to rule on the Motion, the portion of the Government's Notice of Appeal (Doc. #16), which appears to also incorporate a request for a 10-day stay, is now moot.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

(1) The Court's May 15, 2015 Endorsed Order denying Defendant's Response as premature (Doc. #20) is VACATED. (2) The Defendant's Motion to Strike the Government's request for a Stay (Doc. #17) is DENIED as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users' convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other Web sites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer