U.S. v. BIGBEAR, 8:14CR362. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20141224a11
Visitors: 14
Filed: Dec. 23, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 23, 2014
Summary: ORDER F.A. GOSSETT, III, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court on defendant's UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL MOTION DEADLINE [20]. For good cause shown, I find that the motion should be granted. The defendant will be given an approximate 14-day extension. Pretrial Motions shall be filed by January 6, 2015. IT IS ORDERED: 1. Defendant's UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL MOTION DEADLINE [20] is granted. Pretrial motions shall be filed on or before January 6, 2015. 2. T
Summary: ORDER F.A. GOSSETT, III, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court on defendant's UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL MOTION DEADLINE [20]. For good cause shown, I find that the motion should be granted. The defendant will be given an approximate 14-day extension. Pretrial Motions shall be filed by January 6, 2015. IT IS ORDERED: 1. Defendant's UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL MOTION DEADLINE [20] is granted. Pretrial motions shall be filed on or before January 6, 2015. 2. Th..
More
ORDER
F.A. GOSSETT, III, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on defendant's UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL MOTION DEADLINE [20]. For good cause shown, I find that the motion should be granted. The defendant will be given an approximate 14-day extension. Pretrial Motions shall be filed by January 6, 2015.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Defendant's UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL MOTION DEADLINE [20] is granted. Pretrial motions shall be filed on or before January 6, 2015.
2. The defendant is ordered to file the affidavit required by NECrimR 12.1(a) regarding speedy trial as soon as practicable.
3. 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 December 23, 2014 and January 6, 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
