U.S. v. MATARI, 8:11CR386. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20120502b52
Visitors: 13
Filed: May 01, 2012
Latest Update: May 01, 2012
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court on the motion to continue by defendant Crystal L. Foster (Foster) (Filing No. 47). Foster seeks a continuance of the trial of this matter which is scheduled for May 21, 2012. Foster has filed an affidavit wherein Foster represents that she consents to the motion and acknowledges she understands the additional time may be excludable time for the purposes of the Speedy Trial Act. Foster's counsel represents that governmen
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court on the motion to continue by defendant Crystal L. Foster (Foster) (Filing No. 47). Foster seeks a continuance of the trial of this matter which is scheduled for May 21, 2012. Foster has filed an affidavit wherein Foster represents that she consents to the motion and acknowledges she understands the additional time may be excludable time for the purposes of the Speedy Trial Act. Foster's counsel represents that government..
More
ORDER
THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on the motion to continue by defendant Crystal L. Foster (Foster) (Filing No. 47). Foster seeks a continuance of the trial of this matter which is scheduled for May 21, 2012. Foster has filed an affidavit wherein Foster represents that she consents to the motion and acknowledges she understands the additional time may be excludable time for the purposes of the Speedy Trial Act. Foster's counsel represents that government's counsel and Matari's counsel have no objection to the motion. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Foster's motion to continue trial (Filing No. 47) is granted.
2. Trial of this matter as to both defendants, Matari and Foster, is re-scheduled for August 20, 2012, before Judge Joseph F. Bataillon and a jury. The ends of justice have been served by granting such motion and outweigh the interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. The additional time arising as a result of the granting of the motion, i.e., the time between May 1, 2012, and August 20, 2012, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act for the reason that defendants' counsel require additional time to adequately prepare the 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
