United States v. Valenzuela, 4:19CR3048. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20190710a48
Visitors: 18
Filed: Jul. 09, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 09, 2019
Summary: ORDER CHERYL R. ZWART , District Judge . Defendant Valenzuela has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline, (Filing No. 69), because Defendant needs additional time to brief and file her motions. The motion to continue is unopposed. Based on the showing set forth in the motion, the court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1) Defendant Valenzuela's motion to continue, (Filing No. 69), is granted. 2) As to both defendants, pretrial motions and briefs sh
Summary: ORDER CHERYL R. ZWART , District Judge . Defendant Valenzuela has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline, (Filing No. 69), because Defendant needs additional time to brief and file her motions. The motion to continue is unopposed. Based on the showing set forth in the motion, the court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1) Defendant Valenzuela's motion to continue, (Filing No. 69), is granted. 2) As to both defendants, pretrial motions and briefs sha..
More
ORDER
CHERYL R. ZWART, District Judge.
Defendant Valenzuela has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline, (Filing No. 69), because Defendant needs additional time to brief and file her motions. The motion to continue is unopposed. Based on the showing set forth in the motion, the court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1) Defendant Valenzuela's motion to continue, (Filing No. 69), is granted.
2) As to both defendants, pretrial motions and briefs shall be filed on or before July 11, 2019.
3) 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 both defendants, the additional time arising as a result of the granting of the motion, the time between today's date and July 11, 2019, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, because although counsel have been duly diligent, 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)(1), (h)(6) & (h)(7). 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
