United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court are the following motions:
1) Qazi's Motion to Dismiss for Statutory Vagueness (ECF
2) Qazi's Motion to Dismiss for Insufficiency of the
Indictment (ECF No. 421),
3) Qazi's Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Evidence and
Violation of the Commerce Clause (ECF No. 424),
4) Qazi's Motion for Order to Show Cause for the
Government's alleged failure to mail documents in a
timely manner (ECF No. 431), and
5) Qazi's Notice to Assert the Right to Assistance of
Counsel (ECF No. 435).
January 20, 2015, a grand jury charged Qazi with one count of
possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g) and 924(a)(2). (ECF No. 1). Qazi was
convicted of a felony in 2012 for battery with substantial
bodily harm. (Id.). The Court set the original
dispositive motion deadline on March 26, 2015. (ECF No. 8).
The Court extended the motion deadline, (See ECF No.
17), and set the final motion deadline on October 25, 2016.
(ECF No. 213).
April 27, April 30, and May 8, 2018, Qazi filed three
separate motions to dismiss challenging that statute he was
charged under and his indictment. (ECF Nos. 420, 421, 424).
The Government filed responses to the motions. (ECF Nos. 427,
428, 429). Qazi asserts that these responses were not served
on him in a timely matter and moves for an Order to Show
Cause why the Government should not be held in contempt for
hindering judicial process. (ECF No. 431). Qazi also filed a
motion to replace his standby counsel. (ECF No. 435).
Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 420, 421, 424)
Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3), parties must demonstrate good
cause before making a Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3) motion,
including “a motion alleging a defect in instituting
the prosecution, ” after the deadline established by
the court. Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(A). Under LCR 12-1(b)(1)
and (2), parties cannot file: (1) “defenses and
objections based on defects in institution of the
prosecution” or (2) “defenses and objections
based on defects in the indictment or information” more
than thirty days after the arraignment, unless the court sets
an alternative deadline, which then controls. Both LCR
12-1(b)(1) and (2) have exceptions. LCR 12-1(b)(1) allows
defendants to bring motions challenging the composition of
the grand jury after the motion deadline, which is governed
by 28 U.S.C. §1867. LCR 12-1(b)(2) allows defendants to
bring motions challenging the court's jurisdiction or
failure to charge an offense at any point during a
case, the Court set the motion deadline on October 25, 2016.
(ECF No. 213). The deadline applied to all of Qazi's
motions to dismiss. (ECF No. 420, 421, and 424). The motions
do not meet the exceptions presented in 12-1(b), and Qazi has
not demonstrated good cause that justify allowing the motions
after the deadline. For this reason, the Court should deny
the motions to dismiss ...