Opinion
Case No. 2:12-cr-00145-MMD-GWF
04-08-2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RYAN MASTERS, Defendant.
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Ryan Masters' Motion for Exemption from Local Rule 10-6(a). (Dkt. no. 157.) The identical motion is docketed as a "Motion for Appointment of Co-Counsel. (Dkt. no. 158). Defendant has been appointed counsel. While Defendant contends his counsel has not been able to "complete motions or other related matters . . . in an effort to maintain timeliness of progress" in this case, the Court finds that such a reason, even if true, does not warrant exemption from Local Rule 10-6(a). The Court further notes that counsel may not have "complete[d] motions" if there is no valid motion to file.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED the Defendant's identical Motions for Exemption from Local Rule IA 10-6(a) docketed as nos. 157 and 158 are DENIED.
______________
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE