U.S. v. Siegel, 2:17-CR-21 JCM (GWF). (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20180406e53
Visitors: 13
Filed: Apr. 05, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 05, 2018
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . Presently before the court is the government's motion to enforce the forfeiture language of defendant Susan Siegel's plea agreement. (ECF No. 261). On February 16, 2018, defendant filed a motion to withdraw her plea agreement in this case. (ECF No. 245). On April 4, 2018, defendant filed a withdrawal of her motion, noting that the parties have "resolved the issue without the necessity of additional litigation." (ECF No. 264). Therefore, the governmen
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . Presently before the court is the government's motion to enforce the forfeiture language of defendant Susan Siegel's plea agreement. (ECF No. 261). On February 16, 2018, defendant filed a motion to withdraw her plea agreement in this case. (ECF No. 245). On April 4, 2018, defendant filed a withdrawal of her motion, noting that the parties have "resolved the issue without the necessity of additional litigation." (ECF No. 264). Therefore, the government..
More
ORDER
JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.
Presently before the court is the government's motion to enforce the forfeiture language of defendant Susan Siegel's plea agreement. (ECF No. 261).
On February 16, 2018, defendant filed a motion to withdraw her plea agreement in this case. (ECF No. 245). On April 4, 2018, defendant filed a withdrawal of her motion, noting that the parties have "resolved the issue without the necessity of additional litigation." (ECF No. 264). Therefore, the government's motion to enforce the forfeiture language of defendant's plea agreement (ECF No. 261) is moot. The court will deny the motion.
Accordingly,
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
