U.S. v. WILLIAMS, 2:06-cr-00251-PMP-GWF. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20140512f78
Visitors: 3
Filed: Mar. 31, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 31, 2014
Summary: ORDER PHILIP M. PRO, District Judge. Before the Court for consideration is Defendant Jerome Williams' Motion Requesting a Second 28 U.S.C. 2255 Petition (Doc. #130) filed December 30, 2013. On February 23, 2014, Plaintiff United States filed a Response (Doc. #133) in opposition to Defendant's motion. Therein, the Government contends first that Defendant Williams' motion to vacate is untimely. Second, the Government argues that Defendant's motion should be denied on the merits. Before ruling
Summary: ORDER PHILIP M. PRO, District Judge. Before the Court for consideration is Defendant Jerome Williams' Motion Requesting a Second 28 U.S.C. 2255 Petition (Doc. #130) filed December 30, 2013. On February 23, 2014, Plaintiff United States filed a Response (Doc. #133) in opposition to Defendant's motion. Therein, the Government contends first that Defendant Williams' motion to vacate is untimely. Second, the Government argues that Defendant's motion should be denied on the merits. Before ruling ..
More
ORDER
PHILIP M. PRO, District Judge.
Before the Court for consideration is Defendant Jerome Williams' Motion Requesting a Second 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Petition (Doc. #130) filed December 30, 2013.
On February 23, 2014, Plaintiff United States filed a Response (Doc. #133) in opposition to Defendant's motion. Therein, the Government contends first that Defendant Williams' motion to vacate is untimely. Second, the Government argues that Defendant's motion should be denied on the merits. Before ruling on the question of timeliness of Defendant's motion to vacate, the Court deems it appropriate to permit Defendant Williams to respond to the Government's argument in this regard.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Jerome Williams shall have to and including April 30, 2014 within which to respond to the Government's argument that Defendant's Motion to Vacate (Doc. #130) is untimely.
Source: Leagle
