U.S. v. ROBINSON, 8:15CR178. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20151119f10
Visitors: 5
Filed: Nov. 18, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 18, 2015
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the consent motion for an extension of time by defendant Brian Robinson (Robinson) (Filing No. 68). Robinson seeks until February 29, 2016, in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order (Filing No. 31). Robinson represents that government's counsel and counsel for the co-defendants agree to the motion and have no objection to the motion. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the consent motion for an extension of time by defendant Brian Robinson (Robinson) (Filing No. 68). Robinson seeks until February 29, 2016, in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order (Filing No. 31). Robinson represents that government's counsel and counsel for the co-defendants agree to the motion and have no objection to the motion. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted ..
More
ORDER
THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on the consent motion for an extension of time by defendant Brian Robinson (Robinson) (Filing No. 68). Robinson seeks until February 29, 2016, in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order (Filing No. 31). Robinson represents that government's counsel and counsel for the co-defendants agree to the motion and have no objection to the motion. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted as to all defendants.
IT IS ORDERED:
Defendant Robinson's motion for an extension of time (Filing No. 68) is granted. All defendants are given until on or before February 29, 2016, in which to file pretrial motions pursuant to the progression order. The ends of justice have been served by granting such motions and outweigh the interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. The additional time arising as a result of the granting of the motions, i.e., the time between November 18, 2015, and February 29, 2016, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act for the reason defendants' counsel require additional time to adequately prepare the case, taking into consideration due diligence of counsel, and the novelty and complexity of this case. The failure to grant additional time might result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B).
Source: Leagle
