From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Thornton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
May 21, 2013
Case No. 3:05-cr-184 (S.D. Ohio May. 21, 2013)

Opinion

Case No. 3:05-cr-184

05-21-2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MARK J. THORNTON, Defendant.


District Judge Walter Herbert Rice

Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz


ENTRY

This case came on for telephone conference at 9:30 A.M. on Tuesday, May 21, 2013. Assistant United States Attorneys Vipal Patel and Brent Tabacchi participated on behalf of the United States; Carla J. Morman participated on behalf of Defendant.

At the Court's request, Ms. Morman has confirmed that Defendant will be a witness at the evidentiary hearing of this matter, if a hearing is granted by the Court. In order to obtain Defendant's presence, counsel must file a petition for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum sufficiently in advance of the hearing to allow the United States Marshal adequate transportation time.

Mr. Tabacchi confirmed that the identity of the light-skinned African-American male referred to in an affidavit in this matter is not disclosed in testimony before the grand jury. The prior Order denying inspection of the grand jury testimony (Doc. No. 258) is therefore final.

It was agreed that the United States will file a consolidated memorandum in opposition to the Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. No. 252) and the Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. No. 260) not later than May 31, 2013.

Michael R. Merz

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

United States v. Thornton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
May 21, 2013
Case No. 3:05-cr-184 (S.D. Ohio May. 21, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Thornton

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MARK J. THORNTON, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

Date published: May 21, 2013

Citations

Case No. 3:05-cr-184 (S.D. Ohio May. 21, 2013)