United States v. Ramsdell, 4:19-CR-34 (CDL). (2019)
Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20190829867
Visitors: 20
Filed: Aug. 28, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 28, 2019
Summary: CONSENT ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE CLAY D. LAND , Chief District Judge . The Defendant in the above-styled case was indicted on August 15, 2019, and arraigned on August 22, 2019. Defendant's pretrial conference currently is scheduled for September 5, 2019. The parties have represented to the Court that they are requesting additional time to conduct discovery and negotiations. And they move the Court to continue the pretrial conference and the trial. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the
Summary: CONSENT ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE CLAY D. LAND , Chief District Judge . The Defendant in the above-styled case was indicted on August 15, 2019, and arraigned on August 22, 2019. Defendant's pretrial conference currently is scheduled for September 5, 2019. The parties have represented to the Court that they are requesting additional time to conduct discovery and negotiations. And they move the Court to continue the pretrial conference and the trial. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the a..
More
CONSENT ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE
CLAY D. LAND, Chief District Judge.
The Defendant in the above-styled case was indicted on August 15, 2019, and arraigned on August 22, 2019. Defendant's pretrial conference currently is scheduled for September 5, 2019.
The parties have represented to the Court that they are requesting additional time to conduct discovery and negotiations. And they move the Court to continue the pretrial conference and the trial.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-referenced matter be continued to the January, 2020 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
