Anda di halaman 1dari 2

Case 2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL Document 1268 Filed 01/09/17 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

***

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

8
v.

9
10

Case No. 2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL


Plaintiff,

ORDER

O. SCOTT DREXLER,

(Mot. Bill of Particulars ECF No. 1039)


Defendant.

11
12

This matter is before the court on Defendant O. Scott Drexlers Motion for Bill of

13

Particulars (ECF No. 1039), filed November 29, 2016. This Motion is referred to the undersigned

14

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and LR IB 1-3 and 1-7 of the Local Rules of Practice. The

15

court has considered the Motion and the Governments Response (ECF No. 1135), filed December

16

16, 2016. No reply brief was filed and the deadline for doing so has now expired.

17

Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allows criminal defendants to move for

18

a bill of particulars before or within 14 days after arraignment or at a later time if the court

19

permits. Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(f). The Local Rules of Criminal Practice provide that a defendant

20

may file a motion requesting a bill of particulars within 30 days from the arraignment unless the

21

court orders otherwise. See LCR 12-1(a).

22

Mr. Drexler made an initial appearance, was arraigned on the Superseding Indictment, and

23

was appointed counsel to represent him on March 21, 2016. See Minutes of Proceedings (ECF

24

No. 157). On May 25, 2016, Drexler filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars (ECF No. 448) (the

25

first motion). The first motion acknowledged that it was untimely and stated that it was late

26

because this is an extremely complex case where scheduling matters have been highly contested

27

and litigated. Id. at 1. The government filed a Response (ECF No. 519) in opposition. On August

28

///
1

Case 2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL Document 1268 Filed 01/09/17 Page 2 of 2

18, 2016, the court entered an Order (ECF No. 637) addressing the merits of the first motion

despite its untimely filing, and denied Drexlers motion.

Mr. Drexlers second Motion for Bill of Particulars (ECF No. 1039) is untimely as he was

arraigned nearly 10 months ago. He did not file an objection asking the district judge to modify

or reverse the order denying his request for a bill of particulars, and is not entitled to file a

successive motion seeking relief that has been denied.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED: Defendant O. Scott Drexlers Motion for Bill of Particulars (ECF

9
10

No. 1039) is DENIED.


Dated this 9th day of January, 2017.

11
12

PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2