U.S. v. Beltran-Rodelo, 8:17CR286. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20180821d19
Visitors: 7
Filed: Aug. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 20, 2018
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL D. NELSON , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the defendant Jose Murillo's unopposed Motion to Continue Trial [244]. Counsel needs additional time to conduct plea negotiations. For good cause shown, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Continue Trial [244] is granted, as follows: 1. The jury trial, for all defendants, now set for September 17, 2018 is continued to October 22, 2018. 2. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(A), the court finds that th
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL D. NELSON , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the defendant Jose Murillo's unopposed Motion to Continue Trial [244]. Counsel needs additional time to conduct plea negotiations. For good cause shown, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Continue Trial [244] is granted, as follows: 1. The jury trial, for all defendants, now set for September 17, 2018 is continued to October 22, 2018. 2. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(A), the court finds that the..
More
ORDER
MICHAEL D. NELSON, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on the defendant Jose Murillo's unopposed Motion to Continue Trial [244]. Counsel needs additional time to conduct plea negotiations. For good cause shown,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Continue Trial [244] is granted, as follows:
1. The jury trial, for all defendants, now set for September 17, 2018 is continued to October 22, 2018.
2. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the court finds that the ends of justice will be served by granting this continuance and outweigh the interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. Any additional time arising as a result of the granting of this motion, that is, the time between today's date and October 22, 2018, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act. Failure to grant a continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(6), (7)(A) & (B)(iv).
Source: Leagle
