United States v. Simmons

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

V.

CHRISTOPHER FORD, et al.,

FILED

APR2s zms , .S.D' t`ct&Bankruptcy ijor the`i)i;trict of Columb\a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Criminal No. 15-OO25 (PLF)

§/\J\/\_/\_/\)\/\}

Defendants. t hereby it is moot; it is is moot; it is

ORDER

For the reasons stated in the accompanying Opinion issued this same day, it is ORDERED that Fenwick’s motion to suppress, Dkt. 101, is DENIED as moot; it FURT`HER ORDERED that Simmons’s adopting motion to suppress is DENIED; FURTHER ORDERED that Grant’s adopting motion to suppress is DENIED as FURT~HER ORDERED that Hager’s adopting motion to suppress is DENIED; it FURTHER ORDERED that Sanders’s adopting motion to suppress is DENIED; it FURTHER ORDERED that Leach’s adopting motion to suppress is DENIED as FURTHER ORDERED that Ford’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. 121 , is DENIED; it is FURTHER ORDERED that Simmons’s adopting motion to dismiss is DENIED; it is

FURT'IFIER ORDERED that Grant’s adopting motion to dismiss is DENIED as moot; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Fenwick’s adopting motion to dismiss is DENIED as moot; it is

FURT‘HER ORDERED that Hager’s adopting motion to dismiss is DENIED; it is FURTHER ORDERED that Sanders’s adopting motion to dismiss is DENIED; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Leach’s adopting motion to dismiss is DENIED as moot; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Ford’s motion to suppress, Dkt. 124, is DENIED; FURTHER ORDERED that Simmons’s adopting motion to suppress is DENIED; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Grant’s adopting motion to suppress is DENIED as moot; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Fenwick’s adopting motion to suppress is DENIED as moot; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Hager’s adopting motion to suppress is DENIED; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Sanders’s adopting motion to suppress is DENIED; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Leach’s adopting motion to suppress is DENIED as moot; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Sanders’s motion to suppress, Dkt. 127, is DENIED; it is

FURT_HER ORDERED that Grant’s adopting motion to suppress is DENIED as moot; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Fenwick’s adopting motion to suppress is DENIED as moot; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Hager’s adopting motion to suppress is DENIED; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Leach’s adopting motion to suppress is DENIED as moot; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Simmons’s motion to suppress, Dkt. 128, is DENIED; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Grant’s adopting motion to suppress is DENIED as moot; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Hager’s adopting motion to suppress is DENIED; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Leach’s adopting motion to suppress is DENIED as moot.

SO ORDERED.

PA§;L L. FRIEDMAN

United States District Judge

DATE; 410 b \\`_