U.S. v. HUYCK, 8:13CR107 (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20150106c22
Visitors: 27
Filed: Jan. 05, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 05, 2015
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court following a conference on January 5, 2015, with Senior Judge Bataillon, counsel for the government Keith Becker and Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael P. Norris, and counsel for defendant Michael C. Huyck (Huyck), Jerry M. Hug, in Case No. 8:13CR107. Previously Huyck sought a continuance of the trial in Case No. 8:13CR117 dependent upon the resolution of charges against Huyck in Case No. 8:13CR107 (Filing No. 37). Since tr
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court following a conference on January 5, 2015, with Senior Judge Bataillon, counsel for the government Keith Becker and Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael P. Norris, and counsel for defendant Michael C. Huyck (Huyck), Jerry M. Hug, in Case No. 8:13CR107. Previously Huyck sought a continuance of the trial in Case No. 8:13CR117 dependent upon the resolution of charges against Huyck in Case No. 8:13CR107 (Filing No. 37). Since tri..
More
ORDER
THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court following a conference on January 5, 2015, with Senior Judge Bataillon, counsel for the government Keith Becker and Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael P. Norris, and counsel for defendant Michael C. Huyck (Huyck), Jerry M. Hug, in Case No. 8:13CR107. Previously Huyck sought a continuance of the trial in Case No. 8:13CR117 dependent upon the resolution of charges against Huyck in Case No. 8:13CR107 (Filing No. 37). Since trial in 8:13CR107 has now been scheduled for March 2, 2015, trial of Case No. 8:13CR117 is continued until the resolution of the charges in 8:13CR107.
IT IS ORDERED:
Trial of Case No. 8:13CR117 will be rescheduled to follow the trial in Case No. 8:13CR107. The ends of justice have been served by granting such delay and outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. The additional time arising as a result of the granting of the rescheduling, i.e., the time until March 2, 2015, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act for the reason that defendant's counsel requires additional time to adequately prepare the 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
