Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. GARCIA-HERNANDEZ, 8:14CR408. (2015)

Court: District Court, D. Nebraska Number: infdco20150106c29 Visitors: 4
Filed: Jan. 05, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 05, 2015
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Juan C. Garcia-Hernandez (Garcia-Hernandez) (Filing No. 16). Garcia-Hernandez seeks until January 19, 2015, in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. Garcia-Hernandez's counsel represents that Garcia-Hernandez will file an affidavit wherein he consents to the motion and acknowledges he understands the additional time may be excludable
More

ORDER

THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Juan C. Garcia-Hernandez (Garcia-Hernandez) (Filing No. 16). Garcia-Hernandez seeks until January 19, 2015, in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. Garcia-Hernandez's counsel represents that Garcia-Hernandez 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. Garcia-Hernandez's counsel represents that government's counsel has no objection to the motion. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted.

IT IS ORDERED:

Defendant Garcia-Hernandez's motion for an extension of time (Filing No. 16) is granted. Garcia-Hernandez is given until on or before January 20, 2015, 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 January 5, 2015, and January 20, 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 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

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer