U.S. v. DUKINS, 1:11-CR-34. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. Tennessee
Number: infdco20120221a89
Visitors: 8
Filed: Feb. 17, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 17, 2012
Summary: ORDER CURTIS L. COLLIER, Chief District Judge. Defendants Jerome Dukins and Rodney Merelan are charged with thirty counts of counterfeiting in violation of 18 U.S.C. 472. Defendants moved to suppress all evidence found in the vehicle in which they were riding on March 4, 2011 (Court File Nos. 25, 26). These motions were referred to United States Magistrate Judge William B. Mitchell Carter, who held a hearing and subsequently filed a report & recommendation ("R&R") recommending Defendants' m
Summary: ORDER CURTIS L. COLLIER, Chief District Judge. Defendants Jerome Dukins and Rodney Merelan are charged with thirty counts of counterfeiting in violation of 18 U.S.C. 472. Defendants moved to suppress all evidence found in the vehicle in which they were riding on March 4, 2011 (Court File Nos. 25, 26). These motions were referred to United States Magistrate Judge William B. Mitchell Carter, who held a hearing and subsequently filed a report & recommendation ("R&R") recommending Defendants' mo..
More
ORDER
CURTIS L. COLLIER, Chief District Judge.
Defendants Jerome Dukins and Rodney Merelan are charged with thirty counts of counterfeiting in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472. Defendants moved to suppress all evidence found in the vehicle in which they were riding on March 4, 2011 (Court File Nos. 25, 26). These motions were referred to United States Magistrate Judge William B. Mitchell Carter, who held a hearing and subsequently filed a report & recommendation ("R&R") recommending Defendants' motions be denied (Court File No. 39). Defendant Merelan ("Defendant") then filed an objection to the R&R (Court File No. 43),1 and the government responded (Court File No. 44). For the reasons discussed in the accompanying memorandum, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the R&R (Court File No. 39). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants' motions to suppress (Court File Nos. 25, 26).
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Both Defendants filed, on December 29, 2011, motions to extend the time period to object to the R&R (Court File Nos. 41, 42). Citing the need to review the transcript and the condensed holiday schedule, both Defendants requested an additional fourteen days to object to the R&R. The Court GRANTS these motions. Defendant Merelan filed an objection on January 11, 2012 (Court File No. 43)-within the additional fourteen-day period. Defendant Dukins, however, failed to file an objection during this period, and therefore waives his right to appeal this Court's order. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985).
Source: Leagle
