U.S. v. TORRES, 8:13CR26. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20150218b51
Visitors: 25
Filed: Feb. 17, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 17, 2015
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court following a telephone conference with counsel on February 17, 2015. The United States was represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Russell X. Mayer and the defendant, Arturo W. Torres (Torres), was represented by Dana C. Bradford, III. During the conference both parties requested trial be continued to April 20, 2015. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted. IT IS ORDERED: 1. The joint motion to continue trial is
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court following a telephone conference with counsel on February 17, 2015. The United States was represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Russell X. Mayer and the defendant, Arturo W. Torres (Torres), was represented by Dana C. Bradford, III. During the conference both parties requested trial be continued to April 20, 2015. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted. IT IS ORDERED: 1. The joint motion to continue trial is ..
More
ORDER
THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court following a telephone conference with counsel on February 17, 2015. The United States was represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Russell X. Mayer and the defendant, Arturo W. Torres (Torres), was represented by Dana C. Bradford, III. During the conference both parties requested trial be continued to April 20, 2015. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The joint motion to continue trial is granted.
2. Trial of this matter is re-scheduled for April 20, 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 February 17, 2015, and April 20, 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
