Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. GOMEZ-MENDOZA, 8:12CR47. (2012)

Court: District Court, D. Nebraska Number: infdco20120320b38 Visitors: 2
Filed: Mar. 19, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 19, 2012
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Saul Gomez-Mendoza (Gomez-Mendoza) (Filing No. 26). Gomez-Mendoza seeks until April 20, 2012, in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. Gomez-Mendoza has filed an affidavit wherein he consents to the motion and acknowledges he understands the additional time may be excludable time for the purposes of the Speedy Trial Act (Filing No. 27
More

ORDER

THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Saul Gomez-Mendoza (Gomez-Mendoza) (Filing No. 26). Gomez-Mendoza seeks until April 20, 2012, in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. Gomez-Mendoza has filed an affidavit wherein he consents to the motion and acknowledges he understands the additional time may be excludable time for the purposes of the Speedy Trial Act (Filing No. 27). Upon consideration, the motion will be granted.

IT IS ORDERED:

Defendant Gomez-Mendoza's motion for an extension of time (Filing No. 26) is granted. Gomez-Mendoza is given until on or before April 20, 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 March 19, 2012, and April 20, 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

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