U.S. v. MOHAMAD, 8:14CR105. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20141204b17
Visitors: 12
Filed: Dec. 03, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 03, 2014
Summary: ORDER F.A. GOSSETT, III, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court on the unopposed Motion to Continue Trial [32]. Counsel needs additional time to explore plea negotiations. The defendant has complied with NECrimR 12.1(a). For good cause shown, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to continue trial [32] is granted, as follows: 1. The jury trial now set for December 9, 2014 is continued to January 27, 2015. 2. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(A), the court finds that the ends o
Summary: ORDER F.A. GOSSETT, III, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court on the unopposed Motion to Continue Trial [32]. Counsel needs additional time to explore plea negotiations. The defendant has complied with NECrimR 12.1(a). For good cause shown, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to continue trial [32] is granted, as follows: 1. The jury trial now set for December 9, 2014 is continued to January 27, 2015. 2. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(A), the court finds that the ends of..
More
ORDER
F.A. GOSSETT, III, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on the unopposed Motion to Continue Trial [32]. Counsel needs additional time to explore plea negotiations. The defendant has complied with NECrimR 12.1(a). For good cause shown,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to continue trial [32] is granted, as follows:
1. The jury trial now set for December 9, 2014 is continued to January 27, 2015.
2. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the court finds that the ends of justice will be served by granting this continuance and outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Any additional time arising as a result of the granting of this motion, that is, the time between today's date and January 27, 2015, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act. Failure to grant a continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B)(iv).
Source: Leagle
