United States v. Dunlap, 4:19-CR-33 (CDL). (2019)
Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20191011g53
Visitors: 1
Filed: Oct. 07, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 07, 2019
Summary: CONSENT ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE CLAY D. LAND , Chief District Judge . The Defendant in the above-styled case was indicted on September 11, 2019, and arraigned on September 17, 2019. The Government and the Defendant jointly move for a continuance of the pretrial conference and the trial. In this case, the Government has represented to the Court that the parties are requesting additional time to conduct pretrial discovery and conduct plea negotiations. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Summary: CONSENT ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE CLAY D. LAND , Chief District Judge . The Defendant in the above-styled case was indicted on September 11, 2019, and arraigned on September 17, 2019. The Government and the Defendant jointly move for a continuance of the pretrial conference and the trial. In this case, the Government has represented to the Court that the parties are requesting additional time to conduct pretrial discovery and conduct plea negotiations. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that t..
More
CONSENT ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE
CLAY D. LAND, Chief District Judge.
The Defendant in the above-styled case was indicted on September 11, 2019, and arraigned on September 17, 2019. The Government and the Defendant jointly move for a continuance of the pretrial conference and the trial.
In this case, the Government has represented to the Court that the parties are requesting additional time to conduct pretrial discovery and conduct plea negotiations.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-referenced matter be continued hereafter to the Court's 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 Court also removes this case from the previously scheduled October 8, 2019 pretrial calendar.
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
