U.S. v. MEIER, 8:15CR65. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20150508d63
Visitors: 5
Filed: May 07, 2015
Latest Update: May 07, 2015
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the motion to continue by defendant Cole Meier (Meier) (Filing No. 22). The motion was heard following a release hearing on May 7, 2015. Meier was present with his counsel Karen L. Vervaecke and the government was represented by Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Douglas J. Amen. The government had no objection to the motion. The parties requested any continuance to span the defendant's ninety-day treatment program
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the motion to continue by defendant Cole Meier (Meier) (Filing No. 22). The motion was heard following a release hearing on May 7, 2015. Meier was present with his counsel Karen L. Vervaecke and the government was represented by Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Douglas J. Amen. The government had no objection to the motion. The parties requested any continuance to span the defendant's ninety-day treatment program...
More
ORDER
THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on the motion to continue by defendant Cole Meier (Meier) (Filing No. 22). The motion was heard following a release hearing on May 7, 2015. Meier was present with his counsel Karen L. Vervaecke and the government was represented by Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Douglas J. Amen. The government had no objection to the motion. The parties requested any continuance to span the defendant's ninety-day treatment program. Meier agreed to the motion and stated he understood the time provided would be excluded under the computations of the Speedy Trial Act. The motion will be granted.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Meier's motion to continue trial (Filing No. 22) is granted.
2. Trial of this matter is re-scheduled for August 31, 2015, before Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon and a jury. 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 May 7, 2015, and August 31, 2015, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act for the reason that counsel require additional time to adequately prepare the 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
