U.S. v. Rodriguez-Gomez, 8:16CR123. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20160601c15
Visitors: 11
Filed: May 31, 2016
Latest Update: May 31, 2016
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN , Magistrate Judge . The defendant has moved to continue the trial currently set for June 6, 2016 (Filing No. 26). 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. 26), is granted. 2) The trial of this case is set to commence before the Honorable John M. Gerrard, United States District Judge, in Courtroom 4 of t
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN , Magistrate Judge . The defendant has moved to continue the trial currently set for June 6, 2016 (Filing No. 26). 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. 26), is granted. 2) The trial of this case is set to commence before the Honorable John M. Gerrard, United States District Judge, in Courtroom 4 of th..
More
ORDER
THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge.
The defendant has moved to continue the trial currently set for June 6, 2016 (Filing No. 26). 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. 26), is granted.
2) The trial of this case is set to commence before the Honorable John M. Gerrard, United States District Judge, in Courtroom 4 of the United States Courthouse, Omaha, Nebraska, at 9:00 a.m. on July 11, 2016, for two trial days or as soon thereafter as the case may be called. Jury selection will be held at commencement of trial.
3) Based upon the showing set forth in the defendant's motion and the representations of counsel, the Court further finds that the ends of justice will be served by continuing the trial; and that the purposes served by continuing the trial date in this case outweigh the interest of the defendant and the public in a speedy trial. Accordingly, the additional time arising as a result of the granting of the motion, the time between today's date, and the anticipated trial date, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, because despite counsel's due diligence, 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)(6) & (h)(7).
Source: Leagle
