U.S. v. FLORES, 8:12CR70. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20120502b62
Visitors: 6
Filed: Apr. 30, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 30, 2012
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Jorge Rolando Flores (Flores) (Filing No. 120). Flores seeks until June 22, 2012, in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted IT IS ORDERED: Defendant Flores' motion for an extension of time (Filing No. 120) is granted. Flores is given until on or before June 22, 2012, in which to file
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Jorge Rolando Flores (Flores) (Filing No. 120). Flores seeks until June 22, 2012, in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted IT IS ORDERED: Defendant Flores' motion for an extension of time (Filing No. 120) is granted. Flores is given until on or before June 22, 2012, in which to file p..
More
ORDER
THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Jorge Rolando Flores (Flores) (Filing No. 120). Flores seeks until June 22, 2012, in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted
IT IS ORDERED:
Defendant Flores' motion for an extension of time (Filing No. 120) is granted. Flores is given until on or before June 22, 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 April 30, 2012, and June 22, 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
