U.S. v. Zelazny, 8:15CR121. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20160328b90
Visitors: 13
Filed: Mar. 23, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 23, 2016
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the joint oral motion to continue by defendant Danielle Zelazny (Zelazny) and the government made during a telephone conference with the undersigned magistrate judge on March 23, 2016. Zelazny was represented by Barbara J. Thielen and the government was represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew R. Molsen. The parties seek a continuance of the trial of this matter which was scheduled for April 4, 2016. Zelaz
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the joint oral motion to continue by defendant Danielle Zelazny (Zelazny) and the government made during a telephone conference with the undersigned magistrate judge on March 23, 2016. Zelazny was represented by Barbara J. Thielen and the government was represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew R. Molsen. The parties seek a continuance of the trial of this matter which was scheduled for April 4, 2016. Zelazn..
More
ORDER
THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on the joint oral motion to continue by defendant Danielle Zelazny (Zelazny) and the government made during a telephone conference with the undersigned magistrate judge on March 23, 2016. Zelazny was represented by Barbara J. Thielen and the government was represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew R. Molsen. The parties seek a continuance of the trial of this matter which was scheduled for April 4, 2016. Zelazny's counsel represents that Zelazny will file an affidavit whereby Zelazny consents to the motion and acknowledges she understands the additional time may be excludable time for the purposes of the Speedy Trial Act. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The joint oral motion to continue trial is granted.
2. Trial of this matter is re-scheduled for May 31, 2016, before Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon and a jury. The ends of justice have been served by granting such motion 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 motion, i.e., the time between March 23, 2016, and May 31, 2016, 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