United States v. Rodebaugh

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. 1. DENNIS EUGENE RODEBAUGH, d/b/a…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: May 16, 2012

Criminal Case No. 10-cr-00444-CMA-01 (D. Colo. May. 16, 2012)

Opinion

Criminal Case No. 10-cr-00444-CMA-01

05-16-2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. 1. DENNIS EUGENE RODEBAUGH, d/b/a D&S GUIDE & OUTFITTER, and 2. BRIAN DOUGLAS KUNZ, Defendants.

Christine M. Arguello

Judge Christine M. Arguello

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO CLARIFY

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Rodebaugh's "Motion to Clarify Court's Setting Order," which he filed on April 2, 2012. (Doc. # 253.) The motion seeks clarification regarding the motions hearing set for June 15, 2012. (Id. at 3.) The Court grants the motion in part and denies it in part, as follows.

The docket mistakenly lists the hearing as a "Non-Evidentiary Motions Hearing." (Doc. # 246.) Indeed, the hearing will be an evidentiary one on the following five motions filed by Defendant:

• "Request for Pretrial Notice of 404(b) Evidence" (Doc. # 62);
• "Motion to Suppress Search Warrant" (Doc. # 66);
• "Supplemental Motion to Suppress Search Warrant" (Doc. # 147);
• "Second Supplemental Motion to Suppress Search Warrant (Docket # 66), Statements, Search of Motor Vehicle and the Fruits Therefrom" (Doc. # 238); and
• "Motion to Suppress and/or to Dismiss as a Result of the Willful and Intentional Destruction of Evidence and Prejudicial Delay in the Presentment to the Grand Jury and in Obtaining an Indictment and Selective and Vendictive [sic] Prosecution" (Doc. # 79).

Because only these five motions require an evidentiary hearing, the Court disagrees with Defendant that the hearing will take longer than the day for which it is scheduled.¹

1 The other pending motions in this case will be addressed either by written order or, for those motions raising James or Daubert issues, by oral order at the August 6, 2012 hearing.

Accordingly, Defendant's "Motion to Clarify Court's Setting Order" (Doc. # 253) is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that the hearing will be an evidentiary one and DENIED IN PART to the extent that the hearing will not be set for longer than one day.

BY THE COURT:

____________________

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO

United States District Judge