Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Hird, 4:19CR3038. (2020)

Court: District Court, D. Nebraska Number: infdco20200109e21 Visitors: 6
Filed: Jan. 08, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 08, 2020
Summary: ORDER CHERYL R. ZWART , Magistrate Judge . As stated in the court's order on Defendant's oral motion to continue, (Filing No. 33), a copy of which is attached and incorporated herein by reference, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's written motion to continue, (Filing No. 34), is granted. Defendant, appearing pro se at his request, has orally moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline and trial because he had difficulty opening the electronically stored discovery served by the government
More

ORDER

As stated in the court's order on Defendant's oral motion to continue, (Filing No. 33), a copy of which is attached and incorporated herein by reference,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's written motion to continue, (Filing No. 34), is granted.

Defendant, appearing pro se at his request, has orally moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline and trial because he had difficulty opening the electronically stored discovery served by the government, the discovery is voluminous, and he needs additional time to fully review the discovery received before deciding if pretrial motions should be filed. The motion to continue is unopposed. The court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

1) Defendant's motion to continue is granted. 2) Pretrial motions and briefs shall be filed on or before May 1, 2020. 3) Trial of this case is set to commence before the Honorable Richard G. Kopf, Senior United States District Judge, in Courtroom 1, United States Courthouse, Lincoln, Nebraska, at 9:00 a.m. on June 1, 2020, or as soon thereafter as the case may be called, for a duration of five (5) trial days. Jury selection will be held at commencement of trial. 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, and at the Defendant's request and with his consent, the time between today's date and June 1, 2020 shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, because although counsel have been duly diligent, additional time is needed to adequately prepare this case for trial and failing to grant additional time might result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1) & (h)(7). Failing to timely object to this order as provided under this court's local rules will be deemed a waiver of any right to later claim the time should not have been excluded under the Speedy Trial Act.
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