From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Gonzalez

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 22, 2010
No. CR S-09-CR-338 KJM (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2010)

Opinion

No. CR S-09-CR-338 KJM.

February 22, 2010


ORDER


An information was filed August 11, 2009 charging defendant with one count of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 930, possession of a weapon on a federal facility. Defendant was arraigned on the same day.

On September 30, 2009, the court approved the parties' stipulation to continue trial until November 30, 2009. On November 10, 2009, the court approved another stipulation continuing the trial until March 1, 2010, with trial confirmation set for February 18, 2010.

On February 1, 2010, the court moved trial confirmation hearing to February 25, 2010, but maintained the trial date of March 1, 2010.

On February 17, 2010, defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the code section under which defendant is charged is unconstitutional as applied because it violates defendant's right to keep and bear arms as defined by District of Columbia v. Heller, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008). Counsel noticed hearing on the motion for February 25, 2010 at 10:00 a.m.

While the court does not reach the merits of defendant's motion, it notes that defendant apparently does not acknowledgeHeller's observation that nothing in the opinion "should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings. . . ." Id. at 2816-17.

Under Local Rule 430.1(c), motions in criminal cases "shall be filed within twenty-one (21) days after arraignment unless a different time is specifically prescribed by the Court." In addition, the moving party "shall notice all pretrial motions . . . not less than fourteen (14) days after the filing of the motion, and at least seven (7) days before the date of trial confirmation . . ." Defendant has not adhered to the provisions of this rule. Moreover, he did not seek leave to file the motion outside the time limits imposed by the local rule, as required by Local Rule 430.1(f) if the time limits are not to be applied. Accordingly, because the motion (docket no. 12) was not properly filed or noticed, it is denied. This case remains on calendar for January 25th for trial confirmation hearing only.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Gonzalez

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 22, 2010
No. CR S-09-CR-338 KJM (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2010)
Case details for

U.S. v. Gonzalez

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CARLOS GONZALEZ, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Feb 22, 2010

Citations

No. CR S-09-CR-338 KJM (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2010)