U.S. v. Davis, 8:18CR93. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20190320d53
Visitors: 20
Filed: Mar. 19, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 19, 2019
Summary: ORDER SUSAN M. BAZIS , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the defendant's Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial [28]. Counsel is seeking additional time to reach a plea agreement and resolve this matter short of trial. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial [28] is granted as follows: 1. The jury trial, now set for March 26, 2019, is continued to May 7, 2019. 2. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(A), the court finds th
Summary: ORDER SUSAN M. BAZIS , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the defendant's Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial [28]. Counsel is seeking additional time to reach a plea agreement and resolve this matter short of trial. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial [28] is granted as follows: 1. The jury trial, now set for March 26, 2019, is continued to May 7, 2019. 2. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(A), the court finds tha..
More
ORDER
SUSAN M. BAZIS, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on the defendant's Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial [28]. Counsel is seeking additional time to reach a plea agreement and resolve this matter short of trial. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial [28] is granted as follows:
1. The jury trial, now set for March 26, 2019, is continued to May 7, 2019.
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 May 7, 2019, 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
