IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 22, 2009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
BRENT GORDON LONG, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Anthony W. Ishii Chief United States District Judge
[Mag. No. 6:07-MJ-280 WMW]
ORDER ON APPELLANT'S REQUEST FOR NEW BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND NEW BRIEFING SCHEDULE
(Doc. No. 27)
This is an appeal from a conviction for violation of 36 C.F.R. § 2.31(a)(2) following a bench trial before a Magistrate Judge. The appeal was filed on October 21, 2008, and a briefing schedule was docketed on January 21, 2009. On April 2, 2009, the government filed a designation of counsel and used the Magistrate Court file number instead of the District Court file number. On April 28, 2009, Appellant filed a request to modify the scheduling order. In the request, Appellant's counsel explains that he received a receipt for the appeal but that the receipt did not contain the District Court docket number. Appellant's counsel indicates that he found out about the briefing schedule after his clerk contacted the Court on April 27, 2009. Appellant's counsel's requests that a new briefing schedule be set because he was not informed of the current briefing schedule. On May 15, 2009, Appellant filed his opening brief. The government has filed no opposition or response to Appellant's request for a new briefing schedule. In light of the government's silence, the Court will modify the briefing schedule and will accept and consider the late filed opening brief.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Appellant's motion for a new briefing schedule is GRANTED;
2. The Court accepts and will consider Appellant's opening brief (Document No. 29);
3. The Government shall file a response/opposition within 21 days of service of this order; and
4. Appellant may file a reply to the Government's response/opposition brief within 5 days of service of the Government's response/opposition.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.