U.S v. McMILLAN, 4:11CR3139. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20120126468
Visitors: 16
Filed: Jan. 21, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 21, 2012
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CHERYL R. ZWART, Magistrate Judge. The defendant has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline. Filing No. 22. Defense counsel explains he needs additional time to research the law before deciding if a motion to suppress should be filed. Based on the showing set forth in the defendant's motion, the court finds the motion should be granted. IT IS ORDERED: 1) The defendant's motion to continue, (filing no. 22), is granted. 2) The defendant's pretrial motions and brie
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CHERYL R. ZWART, Magistrate Judge. The defendant has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline. Filing No. 22. Defense counsel explains he needs additional time to research the law before deciding if a motion to suppress should be filed. Based on the showing set forth in the defendant's motion, the court finds the motion should be granted. IT IS ORDERED: 1) The defendant's motion to continue, (filing no. 22), is granted. 2) The defendant's pretrial motions and brief..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CHERYL R. ZWART, Magistrate Judge.
The defendant has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline. Filing No. 22. Defense counsel explains he needs additional time to research the law before deciding if a motion to suppress should be filed. Based on the showing set forth in the defendant's motion, the court finds the motion should be granted.
IT IS ORDERED:
1) The defendant's motion to continue, (filing no. 22), is granted.
2) The defendant's pretrial motions and briefs shall be filed on or before January 27, 2012.
3) Trial of this case remains set to commence on February 21, 2012.
4) The ends of justice served by granting defendant's motion to continue outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, and the additional time arising as a result of the granting of the motion, the time between January 20, 2012 and January 27, 2012, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, for the reason that the parties require additional time to adequately prepare the case, taking into consideration due diligence of counsel, the novelty and complexity of the case, and the fact that the failure to grant additional time might result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B).
Source: Leagle
