Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Rosario, 14-6004. (2016)

Court: District Court, D. New Jersey Number: infdco20160617b62 Visitors: 20
Filed: Jun. 07, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 07, 2016
Summary: ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE STEVEN C. MANNION , Magistrate Judge . This matter having come before the Court on the joint application of Paul J. Fishman, United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey (by Andrew S. Pak, Assistant U.S. Attorney), and defendant Ricardo Rosarlo (by Brian Neary, Esq.), for an order granting a continuance of the proceedings in the above-captioned matter for a period of 60 days to allow the parties to conduct plea negotiations and attempt to finalize a plea agre
More

ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE

This matter having come before the Court on the joint application of Paul J. Fishman, United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey (by Andrew S. Pak, Assistant U.S. Attorney), and defendant Ricardo Rosarlo (by Brian Neary, Esq.), for an order granting a continuance of the proceedings in the above-captioned matter for a period of 60 days to allow the parties to conduct plea negotiations and attempt to finalize a plea agreement, and ten prior continuance orders having been entered by the Court pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161 (h)(7)(A), so that the parties could attempt to resolve the matter and thereby avoid a possible trial, and the defendant being aware that he has the right to have the matter submitted to a grand jury within thirty days of the date of his arrest pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161(b), and the defendant having consented to the continuance and waived such right, and for good cause shown,

IT IS THE FINDING OF THIS COURT that this action should be continued for the following reasons:

(1) Plea negotiations are ongoing, and both the United States and the defendant desire additional time to negotiate a plea agreement, which would render any grand jury proceedings and any subsequent trial of this matter unnecessary;

(2) This case is complex, and involves a significant quantity of both physical and recorded evidence; and

(3) Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161 (h)(7), the ends of justice served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.

IT IS, therefore, on this 7th day of June, 2016,

ORDERED that this action be, and it hereby is, continued for a period of 60 days from the date of this Order; and it is further

ORDERED that the period of 60 days from the date of this Order shall be excludable in computing time under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974.

ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE

This matter having come before the Court on the joint application of Paul J. Fishman, United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey (by Andrew S. Pak, Assistant U.S. Attorney) and defendant Abraham Corcino (by Christopher D. Adams, Esq.) for an order granting a continuance of the proceedings in the above-captioned matter for a period of 60 days to allow the parties to enter a plea agreement that has been signed by the defendant, and ten prior continuance orders having been entered by the Court pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161 (h)(7)(A), and the defendant being aware that he has the right to have the matter submitted to a grand jury within thirty days of the date of his arrest pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161(b), and the defendant having consented to the continuance and waived such right, and for good cause shown,

IT IS THE FINDING OF THIS COURT that this action should be continued for the following reasons:

(1) The parties have entered a plea agreement, and seek additional time to schedule a plea hearing, which would render any grand jury proceedings and any subsequent trial of this matter unnecessary; and

(2) Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161 (h)(7), the ends of justice served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

IT IS, therefore, on this 7th day of June, 2016.

ORDERED that this action bc, and it hereby is, continued for a period of 60 days from the date of this Order; and it is further

ORDERED that the period of 60 days from the date of this Order shall be excludable in computing time under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974.

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