U.S. v. Holmes, 8:16CR112. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20160531g49
Visitors: 5
Filed: May 27, 2016
Latest Update: May 27, 2016
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Lisa R. Holmes (Holmes) (Filing No. 21). Holmes seeks an additional twenty-one (21) days in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. Holmes' counsel represents that Holmes will file an affidavit wherein he consents to the motion and acknowledges he understands the additional time may be excludable time for the purposes of the Speedy
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Lisa R. Holmes (Holmes) (Filing No. 21). Holmes seeks an additional twenty-one (21) days in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. Holmes' counsel represents that Holmes will file an affidavit wherein he consents to the motion and acknowledges he understands the additional time may be excludable time for the purposes of the Speedy ..
More
ORDER
THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Lisa R. Holmes (Holmes) (Filing No. 21). Holmes seeks an additional twenty-one (21) days in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. Holmes' counsel represents that Holmes will file an affidavit wherein he consents to the motion and acknowledges he understands the additional time may be excludable time for the purposes of the Speedy Trial Act. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted
IT IS ORDERED:
Defendant Holmes' motion for an extension of time (Filing No. 21) is granted. Holmes is given until on or before June 16, 2016, 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 May 26, 2016, and June 16, 2016, 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
