Filed: Apr. 24, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 24, 2014
Summary: ORDER RICHARD L. VOORHEES, District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Government's Motion For Reconsideration Of The Order To Continue Docket Call/Trial, filed on April 23, 2014. (Doc.#15) On November 19, 2013, the Defendant in the above captioned matter was indicted on a five-count Bill of Indictment. Defendant was charged with sexual exploitation of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2251(a), transportation of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(1), and posse
Summary: ORDER RICHARD L. VOORHEES, District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Government's Motion For Reconsideration Of The Order To Continue Docket Call/Trial, filed on April 23, 2014. (Doc.#15) On November 19, 2013, the Defendant in the above captioned matter was indicted on a five-count Bill of Indictment. Defendant was charged with sexual exploitation of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2251(a), transportation of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(1), and posses..
More
ORDER
RICHARD L. VOORHEES, District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Government's Motion For Reconsideration Of The Order To Continue Docket Call/Trial, filed on April 23, 2014. (Doc.#15)
On November 19, 2013, the Defendant in the above captioned matter was indicted on a five-count Bill of Indictment. Defendant was charged with sexual exploitation of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), transportation of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1), and possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B).
The Defendant filed a continuance on January 3, 2014 and on February 11, 2014, which the Court granted. Likewise, on April 23, 2014, the Defendant filed its third continuance, which the Court granted continuing the case to the Court's July 7, 2014, criminal term. Now, before the Court the Government has filed a Motion asking the Court to reconsider its decision of granting the April 23, Motion.
Upon reviewing the Government's Motion, the Court feels that a continuance in this case is warranted. Therefore, the Court will deny the Government's Motion.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Government's Motion To Reconsider is DENIED.
