Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. NICHOLS, 5:09-CR-00227-F-1. (2013)

Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina Number: infdco20130801c65 Visitors: 4
Filed: Jul. 31, 2013
Latest Update: Jul. 31, 2013
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. FOX, Senior District Judge. Before the court is Defendant's Reply to his Request for a Hearing on Exemptions and Defendant's Motion for an Order Holding the Proceedings in Abeyance [DE-160]. On or before August 29, 2013, the Government is DIRECTED to file a response. The response should specifically include whether the Government objects to Defendant's request for an order placing execution of the property in abeyance for approximately six months. The response should also includ
More

ORDER

JAMES C. FOX, Senior District Judge.

Before the court is Defendant's Reply to his Request for a Hearing on Exemptions and Defendant's Motion for an Order Holding the Proceedings in Abeyance [DE-160]. On or before August 29, 2013, the Government is DIRECTED to file a response. The response should specifically include whether the Government objects to Defendant's request for an order placing execution of the property in abeyance for approximately six months. The response should also include a more elaborate statement of the legal basis upon which the Government relies to oppose Defendant's request for a hearing.1

SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. In the Government's July 10, 2013 Response to Request for Hearing on Exemptions, the Government fairly summarily concludes that a hearing is not necessary because "the United States will not object to any exemptions claimed that is allowed by 18 U.S.C. § 3613." [DE-158 at 2.]
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