THOMAS v. U.S., 3:09-CR-88 RM. (2014)
Court: District Court, N.D. Indiana
Number: infdco20140801g70
Visitors: 6
Filed: Jul. 24, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 24, 2014
Summary: OPINION and ORDER ROBERT L. MILLER, Jr., District Judge. Jermel Thomas filed a motion for extension of time to file a reply to the government's response to his rule 60(b)(1) or (b)(6) motion in this court and the court of appeals. This court denied the motion as moot because the briefing before the court was sufficient for disposition of the issues ( See Doc. No. 125 in 3:09-CR-88; Doc. No. 18 in 3:12-CV-236), and for the same reason, the court DENIES the identical motion (Doc. No. 127 in 3:0
Summary: OPINION and ORDER ROBERT L. MILLER, Jr., District Judge. Jermel Thomas filed a motion for extension of time to file a reply to the government's response to his rule 60(b)(1) or (b)(6) motion in this court and the court of appeals. This court denied the motion as moot because the briefing before the court was sufficient for disposition of the issues ( See Doc. No. 125 in 3:09-CR-88; Doc. No. 18 in 3:12-CV-236), and for the same reason, the court DENIES the identical motion (Doc. No. 127 in 3:09..
More
OPINION and ORDER
ROBERT L. MILLER, Jr., District Judge.
Jermel Thomas filed a motion for extension of time to file a reply to the government's response to his rule 60(b)(1) or (b)(6) motion in this court and the court of appeals. This court denied the motion as moot because the briefing before the court was sufficient for disposition of the issues (See Doc. No. 125 in 3:09-CR-88; Doc. No. 18 in 3:12-CV-236), and for the same reason, the court DENIES the identical motion (Doc. No. 127 in 3:09-CR-88; Doc. No. 20 in 3:12-CV-236) transferred to this court from the court of appeals.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
