IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
August 8, 2006
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
JAMES V. VEST, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, District Judge
On the eve before hearing, Defendant has filed a Motion for Leave to File Reply Memoranda and Delay Argument (Doc. 69). In this Motion, Defendant requests leave to file a Reply to the Government's opposing Response to his Motion to Declare 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) Unconstitutional "As Applied" and to Dismiss Count I (Doc. 55). He further requests that the hearing on this Motion be continued for one week. The Court also notes that Defendant, today, has filed a further memorandum supporting his original Motion to Dismiss Superceding Indictment (Doc. 38). Particularly, this memorandum (Doc. 68) supports Defendant's arguments that Counts II and III of his Superceding Indictment (Doc. 30) should be dismissed. In the interests of justice, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion (Doc. 69) and orders the following:
(1) Defendant is allowed leave to file a Reply brief to his Motion to Declare 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) Unconstitutional "As Applied" and to Dismiss Count I (Doc. 55). This Reply must be filed no later than Monday, August 14, 2006.
(2) The Government is allowed until Friday, August 11, 2006, to file a Response to Defendant's Motion and Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Counts II and III of the Superceding Indictment (Doc. 68). Defendant then has until Wednesday, August 16, 2006, to file a Reply to the Government's Response.
(3) The hearing on BOTH Defendant's Motion to Declare 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) Unconstitutional "As Applied" and to Dismiss Count I (Doc. 55) and Defendant's Motion (Doc. 38) and Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Counts II and III of the Superceding Indictment (Doc. 68)will be held on Thursday, August 17, 2006, at 9:30 a.m.
The Court pursues an aggressive schedule and reminds the parties that this matter is currently set for trial on August 21, 2006. The parties are further admonished that the Court fully expects both sides to be ready to start trial on that date unless Defendant prevails on the motions which are the subject of this order. This matter is not a complex criminal matter and the parties have had ample time to prepare for trial. The public has a recognized right to a speedy trial along with the Defendant and the Court stands vigilant to the needs of all concerned. This case would not receive a peremptory setting until early 2007 were it to be continued. Extraordinary circumstances will be necessary to justify the continuance of this trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 8th day of August, 2006.
David R. Herndon United States District Judge
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.