United States v. Vincent Lane

281 F.3d 638, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 2691, 2002 WL 252420
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit·Decided February 15, 2002·No. 01-4084·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The following are before this court:

1. DEFENDANT’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RELEASE PENDING APPEAL, filed on January 22, 2002, by counsel for the appellant.

2. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RELEASE PENDING APPEAL, filed on January 22, 2002, by counsel for the appellant.

3. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER GRANTING THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO EXTEND THE FILING OF ITS RESPONSE BRIEF, filed on January 22, 2002, by counsel for the appellant.

4. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RELEASE PENDING APPEAL, filed on January 30, 2002, by counsel for appellant.

5. SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RE[639] LEASE PENDING APPEAL, filed on January 30, 2002, by counsel for appellant.

6. GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RELEASE PENDING APPEAL, filed on February 1, 2002, by counsel for appel-lee.

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for release pending appeal is DENIED. It is further ordered that the motion to reconsider order granting the government’s motion to extend the filing of its response brief is GRANTED to the extent that briefing shall proceed as follows:

1. The government’s brief shall be due on March 1, 2002.

2. The appellant’s reply brief, if any, shall be due on March 15, 2002.

The parties are advised that the briefs must be received in the clerk’s office by the specified dates and that no extensions of time shall be granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Vincent Lane, 281 F.3d 638, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 2691, 2002 WL 252420 (7th Cir. 2002).

281 F.3d 638 (United States v. Vincent Lane) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Vincent Lane
281 F.3d 638 (Seventh Circuit, 2002)