United States of America v. Pouncy et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Case No: 23-20262
Plaintiff, 	Hon. F. Kay Behm
U.S. District Judge
v.
D-1 OMAR RASHAD POUNCY,
Defendant.
________________________________/
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S “RENEWED MOTION TO
DISMISS THE FIRST SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT FOR
PREJUDICIAL PRE-INDICTMENT DELAY” (ECF No. 419)
Before the court is Defendant Omar Pouncy’s “Renewed Motion to
Dismiss” for pre-indictment delay (ECF No. 419). The government
responded (ECF No. 432), and the court finds that it is not necessary to
wait for a reply because the issues are sufficiently presented in the
motion and response. 	See Convertino v. United States DOJ, No. 07-CV-
13842, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107800, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 21, 2008)
(“Just as a party is not required to submit a reply brief, the court is not
required to wait for, or consider, a reply brief if the issues are
sufficiently clear after considering a motion and response.”).1
1 Should a reply be received, the court will therefore not address it.
Case 4:23-cr-20262-FKB-CI ECF No. 440, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/10/25 Page 1 of 3

2
In this motion, Pouncy “renews” his motion to dismiss for
preindictment delay, which the court denied at ECF No. 201 on the
grounds that the dispositive motion deadline had passed. The court
therefore denies the motion because it is untimely; as described many
times previously, the dispositive motion deadline has long since passed.
See, e.g., ECF No. 284, 327.
Even if the court were to consider it, it quickly fails at another
procedural hurdle. The motion, although styled as a “renewed” motion,
in substance simply asks the court to reconsider its prior order at ECF
No. 284, and the court therefore construes it as a motion for
reconsideration. But Pouncy already asked for reconsideration of that
order denying his motion to dismiss, and his prior motion for
reconsideration was itself denied. ECF Nos. 309 (motion), 327 (order
denying reconsideration). A motion to reconsider an order denying a
motion for reconsideration is not permitted (LR 7.1(h)(4)), and so the
motion is denied on that basis as well.
For both of the above reasons, the motion is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Case 4:23-cr-20262-FKB-CI ECF No. 440, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/10/25 Page 2 of 3

3
Date: December 10, 2025 	s/F. Kay Behm
F. Kay Behm
United States District Judge
Case 4:23-cr-20262-FKB-CI ECF No. 440, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/10/25 Page 3 of 3