Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Pacheco-Romero, 1:19-CR-00077-LMM-RGV. (2019)

Court: District Court, N.D. Georgia Number: infdco20190906525 Visitors: 3
Filed: Sep. 03, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 03, 2019
Summary: ORDER LEIGH MARTIN MAY , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") [182], which recommends that Defendants' motions to suppress [175; 179; 180] be denied. No objections have been filed in response to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation. Having reviewed the R&R, it is received with approval. The Court therefore ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court. Defendants' motions t
More

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") [182], which recommends that Defendants' motions to suppress [175; 179; 180] be denied. No objections have been filed in response to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation. Having reviewed the R&R, it is received with approval. The Court therefore ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court. Defendants' motions to suppress [175, 179, 180] are DENIED.

The trial in this action is hereby set to begin on Monday, November 4, 2019 at 9:30 A.M. in Courtroom 2107. The pretrial conference will be held on Monday, October 28, 2019 at 10:00 A.M. in Courtroom 2107. By noon on Tuesday, October 15, 2019, the parties are to file the following: motions in limine and proposed voir dire questions. By noon on Tuesday, October 15, 2019, the Government must file a brief summary of the indictment that the parties can rely on for voir dire. By noon on Tuesday, October 22, 2019, the parties are to file responses to motions in limine and any objections and to those items listed above.

Excludable time is allowed through November 4, 2019, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv), to give counsel for Defendant and the Government the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court finds that the ends of justice served outweigh the best interest of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial and are consistent with both the best interest of the public and individual justice in this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer