U.S. v. LINEWEBER, 4:13CR3135. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20140513c55
Visitors: 10
Filed: Apr. 15, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 15, 2014
Summary: ORDER CHERYL R. ZWART, Magistrate Judge. Defendant has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline, (filing no. 23), because the defendant needs to consider and decide whether to enter a guilty plea before deciding whether to file pretrial motions. The motion to continue is unopposed. Based on the showing set forth in the motion, the court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1) Defendant's motion to continue, (filing no. 23), is granted. 2) Pretrial motions an
Summary: ORDER CHERYL R. ZWART, Magistrate Judge. Defendant has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline, (filing no. 23), because the defendant needs to consider and decide whether to enter a guilty plea before deciding whether to file pretrial motions. The motion to continue is unopposed. Based on the showing set forth in the motion, the court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1) Defendant's motion to continue, (filing no. 23), is granted. 2) Pretrial motions and..
More
ORDER
CHERYL R. ZWART, Magistrate Judge.
Defendant has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline, (filing no. 23), because the defendant needs to consider and decide whether to enter a guilty plea before deciding whether to file pretrial motions. The motion to continue is unopposed. Based on the showing set forth in the motion, the court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1) Defendant's motion to continue, (filing no. 23), is granted.
2) Pretrial motions and briefs shall be filed on or before April 29, 2014.
3) Trial of this case is continued pending resolution of any pretrial motions filed.
4) The ends of justice served by granting the motion to continue outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, and the additional time arising as a result of the granting of the motion, the time between today's date and April 29, 2014, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, because this case remains "unusual and complex," and continues to be exempted from the time restrictions of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii).
Source: Leagle
