U.S. v. Miller, CR418-169. (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20190329c86
Visitors: 8
Filed: Mar. 28, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2019
Summary: ORDER CHRISTOPHER L. RAY , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is the Government's Motion for Reciprocal Discovery, doc. 23, to which there has been no response. Because there has been no opposition, the motion is GRANTED . See S.D. L.R. 7.5 ("Failure to respond within the applicable time period shall indicate that there is no opposition to a motion."); S.D. L.R. Crim. 1.1 ("These Local Rules for the Administration of Criminal cases are supplemental to the Local Rules for Civil Cases an
Summary: ORDER CHRISTOPHER L. RAY , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is the Government's Motion for Reciprocal Discovery, doc. 23, to which there has been no response. Because there has been no opposition, the motion is GRANTED . See S.D. L.R. 7.5 ("Failure to respond within the applicable time period shall indicate that there is no opposition to a motion."); S.D. L.R. Crim. 1.1 ("These Local Rules for the Administration of Criminal cases are supplemental to the Local Rules for Civil Cases and..
More
ORDER
CHRISTOPHER L. RAY, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is the Government's Motion for Reciprocal Discovery, doc. 23, to which there has been no response. Because there has been no opposition, the motion is GRANTED. See S.D. L.R. 7.5 ("Failure to respond within the applicable time period shall indicate that there is no opposition to a motion."); S.D. L.R. Crim. 1.1 ("These Local Rules for the Administration of Criminal cases are supplemental to the Local Rules for Civil Cases and the Administration of the Court."). Defendant shall comply with his obligations under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b), 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, and 26.2. Any disclosures which have not yet been made by defendant should be provided no later than noon on Saturday, March 30, 2019.
Also before the Court is the Government's Motion in limine to exclude defendant from offering any evidence concerning his justification for possessing a firearm. Doc. 35. Defendant has indicated that, after review of discovery, he is unaware of any circumstances that would satisfy the test for the invocation of the defense of justification. Doc. 44. As a result, the Government's motion is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
