U.S. v. Lopez-Ortiz, 8:18CR268. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20190412a36
Visitors: 24
Filed: Apr. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 11, 2019
Summary: ORDER SUSAN M. BAZIS , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the defendant's Motion to Continue (Unopposed) [29]. Counsel is scheduled to appear before the Nebraska Supreme Court for oral argument on April 23, 2019. Additional time is needed to complete plea negotiations. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's Motion to Continue (Unopposed) [29] is granted as follows: 1. The jury trial, now set for April 23, 2019, is continued to May 28, 2019. 2. In accordance
Summary: ORDER SUSAN M. BAZIS , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the defendant's Motion to Continue (Unopposed) [29]. Counsel is scheduled to appear before the Nebraska Supreme Court for oral argument on April 23, 2019. Additional time is needed to complete plea negotiations. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's Motion to Continue (Unopposed) [29] is granted as follows: 1. The jury trial, now set for April 23, 2019, is continued to May 28, 2019. 2. In accordance ..
More
ORDER
SUSAN M. BAZIS, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on the defendant's Motion to Continue (Unopposed) [29]. Counsel is scheduled to appear before the Nebraska Supreme Court for oral argument on April 23, 2019. Additional time is needed to complete plea negotiations. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's Motion to Continue (Unopposed) [29] is granted as follows:
1. The jury trial, now set for April 23, 2019, is continued to May 28, 2019.
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 defendant 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 May 28, 2019, 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)(7)(A) & (B)(iv).
Source: Leagle
