U.S. v. Womack, 13-00441-01-CR-W-GAF. (2016)
Court: District Court, W.D. Missouri
Number: infdco20160408p59
Visitors: 13
Filed: Apr. 04, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 04, 2016
Summary: ORDER GARY A. FENNER , District Judge . Now before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment for Conduct in Violation of the Due Process Clause (docs. #75 and #76). 1 On March 17, 2016, Chief United States Magistrate Judge Sarah W. Hays issued her Report and Recommendation (doc. #190). On April 4, 2016, Defendant's Objections to the Report and Recommendation (doc. #228) were filed. Upon careful and independent review of the pending motion, Defendant's Objections to the R
Summary: ORDER GARY A. FENNER , District Judge . Now before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment for Conduct in Violation of the Due Process Clause (docs. #75 and #76). 1 On March 17, 2016, Chief United States Magistrate Judge Sarah W. Hays issued her Report and Recommendation (doc. #190). On April 4, 2016, Defendant's Objections to the Report and Recommendation (doc. #228) were filed. Upon careful and independent review of the pending motion, Defendant's Objections to the Re..
More
ORDER
GARY A. FENNER, District Judge.
Now before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment for Conduct in Violation of the Due Process Clause (docs. #75 and #76).1
On March 17, 2016, Chief United States Magistrate Judge Sarah W. Hays issued her Report and Recommendation (doc. #190). On April 4, 2016, Defendant's Objections to the Report and Recommendation (doc. #228) were filed.
Upon careful and independent review of the pending motion, Defendant's Objections to the Report and Recommendation, as well as the applicable law, this Court hereby adopts and incorporates as its own Opinion and Order the Report and Recommendation of Chief United States Magistrate Judge Sarah W. Hays.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant Verna Cheryl Womack's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment for Conduct in Violation of the Due Process Clause (docs. #75 and #76) is OVERRULED and DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Doc #75 is a redacted version of the motion and doc #76 is an unredacted version filed under seal. Defendant redacted portions of the motion at the request of the government until ruling by the Court on the United States' Ex Parte Motions for Protective Order (docs #41 and #50). On March 31, 2015, the Court granted the motions for protective order to the extent that the subject TIEA applications and related correspondence shall not be disclosed to any third parties outside of this criminal action and denied the motions to the extent that they request that any pleading which references the content of the subject documents be filed under seal. (Doc #84).
Source: Leagle
