U.S. v. Conn, 8:15CR160. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20160301a90
Visitors: 13
Filed: Feb. 29, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 29, 2016
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the motion to continue by defendant Eric Conn (Conn) (Filing No. 28). Conn seeks a continuance of the trial of this matter which was scheduled for February 29, 2016. Conn's counsel represents Conn consents to the motion and acknowledges he understands the additional time may be excludable time for the purposes of the Speedy Trial Act. Conn's counsel represents that government's counsel has no objection to the mo
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the motion to continue by defendant Eric Conn (Conn) (Filing No. 28). Conn seeks a continuance of the trial of this matter which was scheduled for February 29, 2016. Conn's counsel represents Conn consents to the motion and acknowledges he understands the additional time may be excludable time for the purposes of the Speedy Trial Act. Conn's counsel represents that government's counsel has no objection to the mot..
More
ORDER
THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on the motion to continue by defendant Eric Conn (Conn) (Filing No. 28). Conn seeks a continuance of the trial of this matter which was scheduled for February 29, 2016. Conn's counsel represents Conn consents to the motion and acknowledges he understands the additional time may be excludable time for the purposes of the Speedy Trial Act. Conn's counsel represents that government's counsel has no objection to the motion. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Conn's motion to continue trial (Filing No. 28) is granted.
2. Trial of this matter is re-scheduled for May 9, 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 February 29, 2016, and May 9, 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
