Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. VASQUEZ-MARTINEZ, 8:15CR206. (2015)

Court: District Court, D. Nebraska Number: infdco20150918i98 Visitors: 11
Filed: Sep. 17, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 17, 2015
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Maria Elena Macias-Rios (Macias-Rios) (Filing No. 29). Macias-Rios seeks an extension of thirty days in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. Macias-Rios' counsel represents that Macias-Rios will file an affidavit wherein she consents to the motion and acknowledges she understands the additional time may be excludable time for th
More

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Maria Elena Macias-Rios (Macias-Rios) (Filing No. 29). Macias-Rios seeks an extension of thirty days in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. Macias-Rios' counsel represents that Macias-Rios will file an affidavit wherein she consents to the motion and acknowledges she understands the additional time may be excludable time for the purposes of the Speedy Trial Act. Macias-Rios counsel represents that governemtn's counsel has no objection to the motion. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted and the pretrial motion deadline will be extended to both defendants.

IT IS ORDERED:

Defendant Macias-Rios' motion for an extension of time (Filing No. 29) is granted. Macias-Rios and Vasquez-Martinez are given until on or before October 19, 2008, 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 defendant in a speedy trial. The additional time arising as a result of the granting of the motion, i.e., the time between September 17, 2015 and October 19, 2015, 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