U.S. v. Stewart, 8:16CR92. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20160427e00
Visitors: 15
Filed: Apr. 26, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 26, 2016
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Timothy J. Stewart (Stewart) (Filing No. 24). Stewart seeks until May 2, 2016, in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted. IT IS ORDERED: Defendant Stewart's motion for an extension of time (Filing No. 24) is granted. Stewart is given until on or before May 2, 2016, in which to fi
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Timothy J. Stewart (Stewart) (Filing No. 24). Stewart seeks until May 2, 2016, in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted. IT IS ORDERED: Defendant Stewart's motion for an extension of time (Filing No. 24) is granted. Stewart is given until on or before May 2, 2016, in which to fil..
More
ORDER
THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Timothy J. Stewart (Stewart) (Filing No. 24). Stewart seeks until May 2, 2016, in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted.
IT IS ORDERED:
Defendant Stewart's motion for an extension of time (Filing No. 24) is granted. Stewart is given until on or before May 2, 2016, in which to file pretrial motions pursuant to the progression order. 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 April 26, 2016, and May 2, 2016, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act for the reason defendant's counsel requires additional time to adequately prepare the case, taking into consideration due diligence of counsel, and the novelty and complexity of this 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
