Filed: Nov. 13, 2017
Latest Update: Nov. 13, 2017
Summary: ORDER (Second Request) DIANE J. HUMETEWA , District Judge . Upon motion of Defendant Lighezan, no objection by co-defendants or by the Government, and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant's Motion to Continue Trial and Pretrial Deadlines (Doc. 31) for the reasons stated in the motion. This Court specifically finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial. This finding is base
Summary: ORDER (Second Request) DIANE J. HUMETEWA , District Judge . Upon motion of Defendant Lighezan, no objection by co-defendants or by the Government, and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant's Motion to Continue Trial and Pretrial Deadlines (Doc. 31) for the reasons stated in the motion. This Court specifically finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial. This finding is based..
More
ORDER
(Second Request)
DIANE J. HUMETEWA, District Judge.
Upon motion of Defendant Lighezan, no objection by co-defendants or by the Government, and good cause appearing,
IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant's Motion to Continue Trial and Pretrial Deadlines (Doc. 31) for the reasons stated in the motion.
This Court specifically finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial. This finding is based upon the Court's conclusion that the failure to grant such a continuance would deny the Defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED continuing the trial as to all Defendants pending trial from December 5, 2017 to February 6, 2018 at 9:00 a.m., in Phoenix, Arizona, and continuing the pretrial motion deadline until January 5, 2018.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that if any subpoenas were previously issued and served in this matter, that they remain in effect and are answerable at the new trial date and the party who served the subpoena should advise the witnesses of the trial date.
The Court finds excludable delay under 18 U.S.C. §3161(h) from December 6, 2017 to February 6, 2018.
