U.S. v. BETANCOURT, 8:15CR269. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20150923c39
Visitors: 9
Filed: Sep. 22, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 22, 2015
Summary: ORDER F.A. GOSSETT, III , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on defendant's UNOPPOSED MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME FOR CONSIDERATION OF PRETRIAL MOTIONS [34]. For good cause shown, I find that the motion should be granted. The defendant will be given an approximate 39-day extension. Pretrial Motions shall be filed by October 30, 2015. IT IS ORDERED: 1. Defendant's UNOPPOSED MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME FOR CONSIDERATION OF PRETRIAL MOTIONS [34] is granted. Pretrial motions shall be f
Summary: ORDER F.A. GOSSETT, III , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on defendant's UNOPPOSED MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME FOR CONSIDERATION OF PRETRIAL MOTIONS [34]. For good cause shown, I find that the motion should be granted. The defendant will be given an approximate 39-day extension. Pretrial Motions shall be filed by October 30, 2015. IT IS ORDERED: 1. Defendant's UNOPPOSED MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME FOR CONSIDERATION OF PRETRIAL MOTIONS [34] is granted. Pretrial motions shall be fi..
More
ORDER
F.A. GOSSETT, III, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on defendant's UNOPPOSED MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME FOR CONSIDERATION OF PRETRIAL MOTIONS [34]. For good cause shown, I find that the motion should be granted. The defendant will be given an approximate 39-day extension. Pretrial Motions shall be filed by October 30, 2015.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Defendant's UNOPPOSED MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME FOR CONSIDERATION OF PRETRIAL MOTIONS [34] is granted. Pretrial motions shall be filed on or before October 30, 2015.
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., the time between September 21, 2015 and October 30, 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 required 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)(8)(A) & (B).
Source: Leagle
