IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 7, 2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
BAO HOANG LU, DEFENDANT AND MOVANT.
DEFENDANT LU'S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO REPLY TO GOVERNMENT'S OPPOSITION TO LU'S SECTION 2255 MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ) ORDER THEREON
On July 12, 2012 Defendant Bao Lu, by and through counsel of record filed his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Judgment and Sentence. On January 23, 2013 Plaintiff United States of America filed its Opposition to this Motion. Mr. Lu's Reply is currently due on or before Monday, March 11, 2013. By the foregoing, Defendant Lu respectfully requests a 30-day extension of time to file his Reply to Wednesday, April 10, 2013.
This is Defendant's first request for an extension of time to file the Reply in this matter. Assistant United States Attorney William Wong was contacted regarding this request, and Mr. Wong authorized me to state that he has no objection.
The reason for this request is that counsel for Defendant Lu requires this time to fully research and respond to the arguments made by the Government in its Opposition. As the Court is aware, this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 case consists of an extensive record in the District Court and the Court of Appeals. The Government's Opposition is lengthy (46 pages) and we require additional time to review the record, and consider and address the legal arguments raised in the Opposition.
Though I have started this process, a substantial portion of my attention has been required in other matters which were not entirely anticipated at the time the current Reply due date was set, including United States v. Ortiz, et. al., Case No. 12-0119 (SI), a death-penalty eligible case in the Northern District of California, in which there has been extensive ongoing litigation, and Sands v. Lewis, Case No. 11-18026, for which I prepared and argued a habeas appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on February 14, 2013, and now and in the process of writing a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc due in that Court on March 13, 2013. Additionally, Dolores Osterhoudt, Esq., an associate in my office who will be assisting me with the Reply, has a pre-planned vacation from March 21, 2013 to April 2, 2013 and thus will not be available to assist during this period.
As stated above, Assistant United States Attorney William Wong does not object to this requested extension of time. Counsel for Defendant Lu is confident that we will not need any further extensions of time, beyond that requested herein, to file the Reply in this matter.
Date: March 6, 2013 Respectfully submitted, /s/ William L. Osterhoudt WILLIAM L. OSTERHOUDT Counsel for Bao Lu
GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, Defendant Bao Lu's motion for a 30-day extension of time within which to file the Reply to the Government's Opposition to Defendant Lu's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence is granted. Mr. Lu's Reply is now due on or before April 10, 2013.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.