Darcy v. USA
ORDER granting 6 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re 1 Motion to Vacate/Set Aside/Correct Sentence (2255) ( Responses due by 5/14/2012); denying as moot 8 Petitioner's Motion for a Ruling on Government's Motion. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 04/24/2012. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(thh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:11cv311
[Criminal Case No. 1:09cr12]
MICHAEL BRUCE DARCY,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Government’s Motion for
Extension of Time [Doc. 6] and the Petitioner’s Motion Requesting a Ruling
on the Government’s Motion [Doc. 8].
In the Petitioner’s most recent filing [Doc. 8], he asks the Court to issue
a ruling on the Government’s first Motion for Extension of Time which was
filed on February 22, 2012. [Doc. 3]. The Court entered an Order, however,
granting the Government’s first motion on March 5, 2012. [Doc. 5]. The
docket shows that the Clerk of Court served the Petitioner with a copy thereof
by United States mail. In the pending motion, the Petitioner states that he did
not receive a copy of that Order. [Doc. 8]. As a result, the Clerk of Court
mailed a second copy of the Order to the Petitioner on April 20, 2012.
For the reasons stated in the Government’s second motion for an
extension of time, it will be granted.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Government’s Motion for
Extension of Time [Doc. 6] is hereby GRANTED and the Government may file
response on or before May 14, 2012.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for a Ruling [Doc.
8] is hereby DENIED as moot.
Signed: April 24, 2012
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?