U.S. v. MALIKO, 8:11CR359. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20120223b36
Visitors: 17
Filed: Feb. 22, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2012
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Noah Maliko (Maliko) (Filing No. 27). Maliko seeks until February 24, 2012, in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. Maliko's counsel represents that government's counsel has no objection to the motion. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted. IT IS ORDERED: Defendant Maliko's motion for an extension of time (Filing No. 27)
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Noah Maliko (Maliko) (Filing No. 27). Maliko seeks until February 24, 2012, in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. Maliko's counsel represents that government's counsel has no objection to the motion. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted. IT IS ORDERED: Defendant Maliko's motion for an extension of time (Filing No. 27) i..
More
ORDER
THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Noah Maliko (Maliko) (Filing No. 27). Maliko seeks until February 24, 2012, in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. Maliko's counsel represents that government's counsel has no objection to the motion. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted.
IT IS ORDERED:
Defendant Maliko's motion for an extension of time (Filing No. 27) is granted. Maliko is given until on or before February 24, 2012, in which to file pretrial motions pursuant to the progression order. The ends of justice have been served by granting such motion and outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. The additional time arising as a result of the granting of the motion, i.e., the time between February 22, 2012, and February 24, 2012, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act for the reason defendant's counsel requires additional time to adequately prepare the case, taking into consideration due diligence of counsel, and the novelty and complexity of this case. The failure to grant additional time might result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B).
Source: Leagle
