U.S. v. GORDON, 4:17CR3004. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20170310d23
Visitors: 21
Filed: Mar. 09, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 09, 2017
Summary: ORDER CHERYL R. ZWART , Magistrate Judge . Defendants Bajah Pittman and Wakonda Hazel have moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline, ( filing nos. 97 & 98 ), because the defendants need additional time to fully review the discovery received before deciding if pretrial motions should be filed. The motions are unopposed. Based on the showing set forth in the motion, the court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1) The motions to continue by Defendants Pitt
Summary: ORDER CHERYL R. ZWART , Magistrate Judge . Defendants Bajah Pittman and Wakonda Hazel have moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline, ( filing nos. 97 & 98 ), because the defendants need additional time to fully review the discovery received before deciding if pretrial motions should be filed. The motions are unopposed. Based on the showing set forth in the motion, the court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1) The motions to continue by Defendants Pittm..
More
ORDER
CHERYL R. ZWART, Magistrate Judge.
Defendants Bajah Pittman and Wakonda Hazel have moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline, (filing nos. 97 & 98), because the defendants need additional time to fully review the discovery received before deciding if pretrial motions should be filed. The motions are unopposed. Based on the showing set forth in the motion, the court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
1) The motions to continue by Defendants Pittman and Hazel (filing no. 97 & 98) are granted.
2) As to all defendants, pretrial motions and briefs shall be filed on or before April 24, 2017.
3) As to all defendants, trial of this case is continued pending resolution of any pretrial motions filed.
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 as to all defendants, the additional time arising as a result of the granting of the motion, the time between today's date and April 24, 2017, 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)(7)(A) & (B).
5) 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
