United States v. Moschella, 4:19-CR-24 (CDL). (2019)
Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20190821b24
Visitors: 32
Filed: Aug. 20, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 20, 2019
Summary: CONSENT ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE CLAY D. LAND , Chief District Judge . The Defendant in the above-styled case was indicted on June 11, 2019, and arraigned on July 31, 2019. Defendant's pretrial conference currently is scheduled for August 29, 2019. The parties have represented to the Court that they are requesting additional time to conduct discovery and negotiations. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-referenced matter be continued hereafter to the January, 2020 term, and tha
Summary: CONSENT ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE CLAY D. LAND , Chief District Judge . The Defendant in the above-styled case was indicted on June 11, 2019, and arraigned on July 31, 2019. Defendant's pretrial conference currently is scheduled for August 29, 2019. The parties have represented to the Court that they are requesting additional time to conduct discovery and negotiations. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-referenced matter be continued hereafter to the January, 2020 term, and that..
More
CONSENT ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE
CLAY D. LAND, Chief District Judge.
The Defendant in the above-styled case was indicted on June 11, 2019, and arraigned on July 31, 2019. Defendant's pretrial conference currently is scheduled for August 29, 2019.
The parties have represented to the Court that they are requesting additional time to conduct discovery and negotiations.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-referenced matter be continued hereafter to the January, 2020 term, and that the Speedy Trial deadline for the trial in this matter imposed by 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1) be extended to that time. The pretrial conference shall be rescheduled prior to the start of the January, 2020 term.
It is the Court's finding that the ends of justice [18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A)] served by the granting of this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial for the reason that failure to grant such continuance could result in a miscarriage of justice [18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(i)]; and the failure to grant such continuance would deny counsel for the Defendant and the Government the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence [18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv)].
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
