U.S. v. WILLIAMS, 8:12CR88. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20120524b85
Visitors: 3
Filed: May 23, 2012
Latest Update: May 23, 2012
Summary: ORDER F.A. GOSSETT, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court on defendant's UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE PRETRIAL MOTIONS [34]. For good cause shown, I find that the motion should be granted. The defendant will be given an approximate 30-day extension. Pretrial Motions shall be filed by June 22, 2012. IT IS ORDERED: 1. Defendant's UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE PRETRIAL MOTIONS [34] is granted. Pretrial motions shall be filed on or before June 22, 2012. 2. Th
Summary: ORDER F.A. GOSSETT, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court on defendant's UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE PRETRIAL MOTIONS [34]. For good cause shown, I find that the motion should be granted. The defendant will be given an approximate 30-day extension. Pretrial Motions shall be filed by June 22, 2012. IT IS ORDERED: 1. Defendant's UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE PRETRIAL MOTIONS [34] is granted. Pretrial motions shall be filed on or before June 22, 2012. 2. The..
More
ORDER
F.A. GOSSETT, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on defendant's UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE PRETRIAL MOTIONS [34]. For good cause shown, I find that the motion should be granted. The defendant will be given an approximate 30-day extension. Pretrial Motions shall be filed by June 22, 2012.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Defendant's UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE PRETRIAL MOTIONS [34] is granted. Pretrial motions shall be filed on or before June 22, 2012.
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 May 21, and June 22, 2012, 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
