Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. CHENG LIN, 3:17-cr-117-DCB-FKB. (2017)

Court: District Court, S.D. Mississippi Number: infdco20171226644 Visitors: 2
Filed: Dec. 21, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 21, 2017
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE DAVID C. BRAMLETTE, III , District Judge . This cause having come before the Court on the motion of the defendant Yan Fei Tang, the Motion of Joinder by defendant Cheng Lin, the Motion of Joinder by defendant Guo Guang Lin, and the Motion of Joinder by defendant Lin's China Buffet of Meridian, Inc., d/b/a China Buffet II, to continue this matter, and the Government advising that it has no objection to said motions, and the Court having considered said
More

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

This cause having come before the Court on the motion of the defendant Yan Fei Tang, the Motion of Joinder by defendant Cheng Lin, the Motion of Joinder by defendant Guo Guang Lin, and the Motion of Joinder by defendant Lin's China Buffet of Meridian, Inc., d/b/a China Buffet II, to continue this matter, and the Government advising that it has no objection to said motions, and the Court having considered said motions, finds that for the following reasons said motions are well taken and are hereby granted, and that the period of delay shall be excluded in computing the time within which the trial of this matter commence in accordance with the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §3161.

Also having duly considered the factors articulated in Title 18, Section 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv) to determine the appropriateness of a continuance, the Court finds that the failure to grant such a continuance would deny counsel for the defendants or the attorney for the Government the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. Pursuant to Title 18, Section 3161(h)(7)(A) of the United States Code, the ends of justice outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial in this cause and are best served by granting the requested continuance.

The Court finds that the defendants have specifically waived any speedy trial objections heretofore arising or which may arise as a result of this requested continuance under the Speedy Trial Act or the Constitution in the case at bar and specifically join in this motion for a continuance for the reasons described above.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter be continued until the Court's next trial term beginning on April 2, 2018, and that the period of delay shall be excluded in computing the time within which the trial of this matter commence in accordance with the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §3161.

SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer