ORDERED, on the court’s own motion, that within ten days of the date of this order the district judge file a response addressing petitioner’s request that this court order the district judge to grant the government’s motion to dismiss filed on May 7, 2020 (ECF No. 198). See Fed. R. Crim. P. 48(a); United States v. Fokker Services B.V., 818 F.3d 733 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
Again, what kind of “response” are they expecting? Is “looking into it, let you know in a month” OK? How about, “maybe, not quite sure?”
How about: I’m reviewing the motion to dismiss and will rule on it.
The motion to dismiss seems to contradict some of the previous statements by the DOJ. Wouldn’t those contradictions need to be explained? Stricken from the record?
The DC Circuit has full discretion as to how they grant the Writ. They may grant the Writ in full or in part. They may send the case back to Sullivan with orders to dismiss or they may reassign it to another Judge with orders to dismiss.
I do believe that it is close to 100% likely that the DC Circuit will grant the Writ and that this case will not have to go to the Supreme Court.
and you are wrong. he was not found in contempt and did not receive a sentence enhancement for attempting to change his plea. The obstruction enhancement was due to be argued at sentencing before he tried to change his plea by order of the judge. further, this case would not be instructive because unlike the flynn case, the state did not agree that he should be able to change his plea and called witnesses that refuted his claim of innocence.
The appellate courts order is that he respond to them and defend his decisions re the complaint. Not that he decide the case. He us to address the petitioners appeal and argue why it should not be granted, not decide the case.
yes, you might want to reread it, because you got it all wrong.
The judge told the lawyers to be prepared to argue why he should or should not apply a sentence enhancement prior to sentencing. Instead of doing that Vargas attempted to change his plea. The obstruction enhancement is unconnected to his plea.