Filed: Jun. 25, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 25, 2019
Summary: CONSENT ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE CLAY D. LAND , Chief District Judge . The Defendant in the above-styled case was indicted on February 14, 2019, and arraigned on June 20, 2019. In this case, the Government has represented to the Court that the parties are requesting additional time to conduct pretrial discovery and conduct plea negotiations. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-referenced matter be continued hereafter to the Court's September, 2019 term, and that the Speedy Tria
Summary: CONSENT ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE CLAY D. LAND , Chief District Judge . The Defendant in the above-styled case was indicted on February 14, 2019, and arraigned on June 20, 2019. In this case, the Government has represented to the Court that the parties are requesting additional time to conduct pretrial discovery and conduct plea negotiations. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-referenced matter be continued hereafter to the Court's September, 2019 term, and that the Speedy Trial..
More
CONSENT ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE
CLAY D. LAND, Chief District Judge.
The Defendant in the above-styled case was indicted on February 14, 2019, and arraigned on June 20, 2019.
In this case, the Government has represented to the Court that the parties are requesting additional time to conduct pretrial discovery and conduct plea negotiations.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-referenced matter be continued hereafter to the Court's 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. The Court, however, finds no reason to reschedule the pretrial conference, which is presently scheduled for July 23, 2019. ACCORDINGLY, THE PRETRIAL CONFERENCE SHALL REMAIN ON JULY 23, 2019 AS PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED WITH TRIAL TO BE HELD DURING THE COURT'S SEPTEMBER 2019 TERM.
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.
