ML042610300

Petitioners Motion for Extension of Time to Reply to Motion to Dismiss, Dated 9/2/04

ML042610300
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	09/02/2004
From:	Burton N Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, US Federal Judiciary, Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit
Charles Mullins
References
04-3577-AG
Download: ML042610300 (4)

Text

T-1080 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Each motion must be accompanied by a supporting affidavit with statement of issues. (Local Rule 27(a))

Include brief statement of facts with page references to the moving papers.

Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone V.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission et al.

sise short title 04-3577-AG Docket Number NIOTION INFORMIATION FORNI Motionfo0Extt-nyinn of Time tio Reply to Motion to Dismiss

%i0TlION BN (Nanie. address and tel. no. of lawvfirm OPPOSING COUNSEL: (Name. address and tei. ro.

and of arror,,er in charge of rote) of lawiilrm andallorney in charge tif rase)

-Nancy Burton -203-938-3952 Charles-E.-.Mullins 301-415-1606 147 Cross Highway U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,WashingtonDC l l1 fc

,sc 6

8 7 6 EMERGENCY MIOTIONS, MIOTIONS FOR STrAYS AND INJUNCTIONS PENDING APPEAL A. been sought?

B. been obtained?

X Yes ONo X Yes 0 No IHas service been effected?

Is oral argument desired?

,{Substantive mnotion.i only)

N Yes 0 No 0 Yes10 No Has request for relief been made below?

(See F.R.A.P. Rule 8.)

Any previous request for similar relief made to-the 2 Circuit?

M Yes 0 No O Yes C Nv Requested return date:

{See Second Circuit Rule 27(b).)

Hlas,argurnent-date of appeal been set:

A. by scheduling order?

B. by firm date/argument notice?

C. If ves, enter date:

Would e.iledi appeal eliminate need for this motion?

.If no, explain'.why not: '

o Yes 2Xj No o Yes )J No Will the parties agree to maintain the status quo until the motion is heard?.

C Yes El No C Yes C No Judge or agency whose order is being appealed:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Briel'statement of the relief requested:

toyi,.iss o

day Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply fto 1tion to'Dismfss. one day beyond date set (September 3, 2004) 1 B y}(SigLaruer ofAtfomee)'

Appearing for:-(Name of Part n

Si-ned name must be pr' d beneath.

N Bur /

Appellant or Pettioner:

e aiiniitl Dc Delendnti Sep 2

2004 Ajpellee or Respondent:

E PlaintiOff E DekOCIda lDate:

September 2, 2004 ORDER rordiy leave this space blank.

iBEroRE:

IT IS IIEREBY,ORDERED that the motion be and it hereby is gr~anted;. :

e fnied.

r I C-r the Cour:.

' ROSEANN B. MAc'KECHNIE. CLERK

'Date I

, By:..

March 2001

,. )

_19_

i-

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT CONNECTICUT COALITION 04-3577-AG AGAINST MILLSTONE V.

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR._____:

REGULATORY COMMISSION ET AL.

SEPTEMBER 2, 2004 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO REPLY TO MOTION TO DISMISS The petitioner, Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone, moves for an extension of time within which to reply to the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the United States of American.

The petitioner requests a one-day extension beyond the date set for a reply, to September 3, 2004.

The extension is sought because of a variety of scheduling conflicts on the part of petitioner's counsel, the undersigned. Counsel for the Government Respondents as well as the Intervenor have consented to this request.

An affidavit accompanies this motion.

CONNECTICUT COALITION AGAINST MILLSTONE The Petitioner By:

Nancy Bu k4,Esq.

147 Cros-ighway Redding Ridge CT 06876 Tel. 203-938-3952 Ct5550

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT CONNECTICUT COALITION 04-3577-AG AGAINST MILLSTONE V.

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ET AL.

SEPTEMBER 2, 2004 AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME I, Nancy Burton, under penalty of perjury, do hereby declare and affirm as follows:

1. I am above the age of eighteen (18) years and I believe in the obligation of an oath.

2. I represent the petitioner, Connecticut Coalition Against Millstone, in this matter.

3. This affidavit is submitted in support of the accompanying Motion for Extension of Time to Reply to Motion to Dismiss.

4. The extension is sought because of professional scheduling conflicts involving briefing and other commitments.

5. Counsel for the Government Respondents and the Intervenor have consented to the request.

CERTIFICATION This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing "Motion for Extension of Time to Reply to Motion to Dismiss" delivered to the U.S. Postal Service, postage pre-paid, First Class, on September 2, 2004, for service upon the following:

Charles E. Mullins, Esq.

Office of the General Counsel

---

U.S.-Nuclear.Regulatory Commission-_

Washington DC 20555-0001 Andrew Mergen, Esq.

Appellate Section Environment and Natural Resources Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 23795 Washington DC 20026-3795 David R. Lewis, Esq.

Shaw Pittman LLP 2300 N Street NW Washington DC 20037-1128 Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq.

Millstone Nuclear Power Station Building 475/5 Rope Ferry Road Waterford CT 06385

-g

---