U.S. v. BASKIN, 8:15CR204. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20150804c50
Visitors: 11
Filed: Jul. 31, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 31, 2015
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the oral motion of defendant Christopher Baskin (Baskin) for an extension of the pretrial motion deadline. The motion was made during the arraignment on the Indictment on July 31, 2015. The government had no objection to the motion. Baskin acknowledged the additional time needed for his motion would be excluded under the calculations under the Speedy Trial Act. The oral motion was granted. IT IS ORDERED: 1. B
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the oral motion of defendant Christopher Baskin (Baskin) for an extension of the pretrial motion deadline. The motion was made during the arraignment on the Indictment on July 31, 2015. The government had no objection to the motion. Baskin acknowledged the additional time needed for his motion would be excluded under the calculations under the Speedy Trial Act. The oral motion was granted. IT IS ORDERED: 1. Ba..
More
ORDER
THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on the oral motion of defendant Christopher Baskin (Baskin) for an extension of the pretrial motion deadline. The motion was made during the arraignment on the Indictment on July 31, 2015. The government had no objection to the motion. Baskin acknowledged the additional time needed for his motion would be excluded under the calculations under the Speedy Trial Act. The oral motion was granted.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Baskin's motion for an extension of time to file pretrial motions is granted. Baskin shall have to on or before September 9, 2015, in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order.
2. 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., from August 20, 2015, and September 9, 2015, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act for the reason defendant's counsel requires 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
