U.S. v. BOYD, 7:13-CR-114-BR-1. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20140723c96
Visitors: 9
Filed: Jul. 22, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 22, 2014
Summary: ORDER W. EARL BRITT, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the court on defendant's unopposed motion to reopen the pretrial motions period and to continue the arraignment and trial. For good cause shown, the motion is ALLOWED. Any pretrial motion shall be filed on or before 11 August 2014. Arraignment and trial are continued to 29 September 2014. Because defense counsel has a scheduling conflict with the current arraignment and trial date and thus needs additional time to prepare, the c
Summary: ORDER W. EARL BRITT, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the court on defendant's unopposed motion to reopen the pretrial motions period and to continue the arraignment and trial. For good cause shown, the motion is ALLOWED. Any pretrial motion shall be filed on or before 11 August 2014. Arraignment and trial are continued to 29 September 2014. Because defense counsel has a scheduling conflict with the current arraignment and trial date and thus needs additional time to prepare, the co..
More
ORDER
W. EARL BRITT, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the court on defendant's unopposed motion to reopen the pretrial motions period and to continue the arraignment and trial. For good cause shown, the motion is ALLOWED. Any pretrial motion shall be filed on or before 11 August 2014. Arraignment and trial are continued to 29 September 2014. Because defense counsel has a scheduling conflict with the current arraignment and trial date and thus needs additional time to prepare, the court finds the ends of justice served by granting of this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and defendant in a speedy trial. The period of delay necessitated by this continuance is excluded from speedy trial computation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).
Source: Leagle
