From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Ai Le

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 21, 2003
No. CR. S-99-0433 WBS (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2003)

Opinion

No. CR. S-99-0433 WBS.

February 21, 2003


ORDER


In the court's Order, filed February 14, 2003, regarding defendant Hoang Ai Le's motion to suppress evidence from wiretaps, the court inadvertently failed to mention the joinder of some defendants in the motion. The court understands that co-defendants John That Luong, Thy Chann, and Minh Huynh formally joined in the motion and that all other defendants, with the exception of Bao Lu, joined informally in the motion. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the court's Order of February 14, 2003, the motion is denied as to all other defendants who have joined in it.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Ai Le

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 21, 2003
No. CR. S-99-0433 WBS (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2003)
Case details for

United States v. Ai Le

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. HOANG AI LE, et. al., Defendants

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

Date published: Feb 21, 2003

Citations

No. CR. S-99-0433 WBS (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2003)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Velarde-Ozuna

A district court evaluating a wiretap authorization in order to resolve a suppression motion applies the same…

U.S. v. Rubio

Evidentiary hearings should not be set as a matter of course, but only when the petition alleges facts which…