U.S. v. Walker, 4:19-CR-3-2-CDL-MSH. (2019)
Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20190124a52
Visitors: 12
Filed: Jan. 23, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 23, 2019
Summary: CONSENT ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE CLAY D. LAND , Chief District Judge . The Defendant in the above-styled case was indicted on January 8, 2019, and arraigned on January 18, 2019. Defendant's pretrial conference has not been scheduled at this time, but the Court has indicated it will be scheduled for January 28, 2019. The parties have represented to the Court that they are requesting additional time to conduct discovery and negotiations. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-refe
Summary: CONSENT ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE CLAY D. LAND , Chief District Judge . The Defendant in the above-styled case was indicted on January 8, 2019, and arraigned on January 18, 2019. Defendant's pretrial conference has not been scheduled at this time, but the Court has indicated it will be scheduled for January 28, 2019. The parties have represented to the Court that they are requesting additional time to conduct discovery and negotiations. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-refer..
More
CONSENT ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE
CLAY D. LAND, Chief District Judge.
The Defendant in the above-styled case was indicted on January 8, 2019, and arraigned on January 18, 2019. Defendant's pretrial conference has not been scheduled at this time, but the Court has indicated it will be scheduled for January 28, 2019.
The parties have represented to the Court that they are requesting additional time to conduct discovery and negotiations.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-referenced matter be continued hereafter to the September, 2019 term, and that the Speedy Trial deadline for the trial in this matter imposed by 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1) be extended to that time.
It is the Court's finding that the ends of justice [18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A)] served by the granting of this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial for the reason that failure to grant such continuance could result in a miscarriage of justice [18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(i)]; and the failure to grant such continuance would deny counsel for the Defendant and the government the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence [18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv)].
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
