Reply to Judge Entz's Motion to Extend Time for Oral Argument

    Tir: ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF TIXAS 

April 16, 1990 
AIM REATTOX 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 
Gilbert Ganucheau, Clerk 

Fifth Circuit 
600 Camp Street 
New Orleans, d.ouisiana 70130 

  

Re: LULAC v. Mattox, No. 90-8014 

Dear Mr. Ganucheaux 

Enclosed for filing in the above-referenced cause are the original 
and three copies of a Reply to Judge Entz's Motion to Extend Time for 
Oral Argument. : 

Sincerely, 

RR, 

ie (RA 
x wt C 3% 

 ) 
—1, a aS 

Renea Hicks 
Special Assistant Attorney General 

Ve 

  

P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station 
Austin, Texas 78711-2548 
(512) 463-2085 

ce: Counsel of Record 

SAR /ABRB=22100 SUPREME COURT IBUNLLIING AUSTIN, MEXAS 78711-2548 

 



  

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FIFTH CIRCUIT 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN 
AMERICAN CITIZENS, et al., 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

VS. No. 90-8014 

JIM MATTOX, et al., 
Defendants-Appellants. 

%® 

on
 

Lo
n 

Ao
n 

on
 

Ao
n 

Un
 

Wo
n 

Un
 

REPLY TO JUDGE ENTZ'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR ORAL 
ARGUMENT 

The Attorney Sanaa) of Texas, on behalf of the State of Texas, replies 

as follows to the Motion to Extend Time for Oral Argument filed by Judge 

Entz: 

1. The State of Texas does not oppose the additional oral argument 

time sought through the motion. Indeed, it welcomes it. 

2 The Court, however, should not assume that granting the 

additional time will necessarily lessen the "squabbles" amongst appellants’ 

attorneys about the division of time for oral argument. There is a chance 

that it will -- just as the Court's pre-argument disposition of the State's three 

pending motions regarding disqualification or certification might lessen the 

"squabbles.” « There is no guarantee, however, that lessening the 

disagreements would follow solely from increasing the time for argument. 

In fact, increasing the argument time without disposing of the pending State 

motions has the potential for heightening the disputes over argument time. 

All this is merely by way of saying that, if the Court intends to carry the 

pending State motions through the case on the merits, its disposition of 

 



  

Judge Entz's motion should be done largely without regard to problems 

regarding division of argument time among appellants. 

Respectfully submitted, 

JIM MATTOX 
Attorney General of Texas 

MARY F. KELLER 
First Assistant Attorney General 

7 
- 

RENEA HICKS 
Special Assistant Attorney General 

  

  

A v 

- ei NE 7 9 22EEN, 1 - 

JAVIER GUAJARDO / 
Assistant Attorney General 

P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station 
Austin, Texas 78711-2548 

(512) 463-2085 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on this 16th day of April, 1990, I sent a copy of the 
foregoing document by first class United States mail, postage prepaid, to 
each of the following: William L. Garrett, Garrett, Thompson & Chang, 8300 
Douglas, Suite 800, Dallas, Texas 75225; Rolando Rios, Southwest Voter 
Registration & Education Project, 201 N. St. Mary's, Suite 521, San Antonio, 
Texas 78205; Sherrilyn A. Ifill, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, 
Inc., 99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor, New York, New York 10013; Gabrielle K. 
McDonald, 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 2050, Austin, Texas 78701; Edward 
B. Cloutman, III, Mullinax, Wells, Baab & Cloutman, P.C., 3301 Elm Street, 
Dallas, Texas 75226-1637; J. Eugene Clements, Porter & Clements, 700 
Louisiana, Suite 3500, Houston, Texas 77002-2730; Robert H. Mow, Jr., 
Hughes & Luce, 2800 Momentum Place, 1717 Main Street, Dallas, Texas 
75201; John L. Hill, Jr., Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, Hill & LaBoon, 3300 Texas 
Commerce Tower, Houston, Texas 77002; Walter L. Irvin, 5787 South 
Hampton Road, Suite 210, Lock Box 122, Dallas, Texas 75232-2255; and 

By PA 

 



Seagal V. Wheatley, Oppenheimer, Rosenberg, Kelleher & Wheatley, Inc., 
711 Navarro, Sixth Floor, San Antonio, Texas 78205. 

  

ap Re naa t (Cpe 
  

Renea Hicks