Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. LOPEZ-ACOSTA, 8:13CR275. (2013)

Court: District Court, D. Nebraska Number: infdco20130828c18 Visitors: 6
Filed: Aug. 27, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 27, 2013
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Carlos Armando Corona-Sanchez (Corona-Sanchez) (Filing No. 40). Corona-Sanchez seeks additional time in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. Corona-Sanchez's counsel represents that Corona-Sanchez will file an affidavit wherein he consents to the motion and acknowledges he understands the additional time may be excludable time for th
More

ORDER

THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Carlos Armando Corona-Sanchez (Corona-Sanchez) (Filing No. 40). Corona-Sanchez seeks additional time in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. Corona-Sanchez's counsel represents that Corona-Sanchez will file an affidavit wherein he consents to the motion and acknowledges he understands the additional time may be excludable time for the purposes of the Speedy Trial Act. Corona-Sanchez's counsel represents that government's counsel has no objection to the motion. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted and the deadline will be extended as to all defendants.

IT IS ORDERED:

Defendant Corona-Sanchez's motion for an extension of time (Filing No. 40) is granted. All defendants are given until on or before September 27, 2013, in which to file pretrial motions pursuant to the progression order. The ends of justice have been served by granting such motion and outweigh the interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. The additional time arising as a result of the granting of the motion, i.e., the time between August 27, 2013, and September 27, 2013, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act for the reason defendants' counsel require additional time to adequately prepare the case, taking into consideration due diligence of counsel, and the novelty and complexity of this 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

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer