U.S. v. Ortega, 8:16CR77. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20160408h87
Visitors: 5
Filed: Apr. 05, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 05, 2016
Summary: ORDER CHERYL R. ZWART , Magistrate Judge . Defendant Benson has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline, (filing no. 30), because the defendant is awaiting receipt of additional discovery from the government and needs to review that discovery before deciding if pretrial motions should be filed. The motion to continue is unopposed. Based on the showing set forth in the motion, the court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1) Defendant Benson's motion to c
Summary: ORDER CHERYL R. ZWART , Magistrate Judge . Defendant Benson has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline, (filing no. 30), because the defendant is awaiting receipt of additional discovery from the government and needs to review that discovery before deciding if pretrial motions should be filed. The motion to continue is unopposed. Based on the showing set forth in the motion, the court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1) Defendant Benson's motion to co..
More
ORDER
CHERYL R. ZWART, Magistrate Judge.
Defendant Benson has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline, (filing no. 30), because the defendant is awaiting receipt of additional discovery from the government and needs to review that discovery before deciding if pretrial motions should be filed. The motion to continue is unopposed. Based on the showing set forth in the motion, the court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1) Defendant Benson's motion to continue, (filing no. 30), is granted.
2) As to both defendants, pretrial motions and briefs shall be filed on or before June 15, 2016.
3) As to both defendants, trial of this case is continued pending resolution of any pretrial motions filed.
4) The ends of justice served by granting the motion to continue outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, and
a. As to both defendants, the additional time arising as a result of the granting of the motion, the time between today's date and June 15, 2016, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, because this case remains "unusual and complex," and continues to be exempted from the time restrictions of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(6) & (h)(7)(B)(ii).
b. Failing to timely file an objection to this order as provided in the local rules of this court will be deemed a waiver of any right to later claim the time should not have been excluded under the Speedy Trial Act.
Source: Leagle
