U.S. v. BELTRAN, 4:12CR3009. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20120621b00
Visitors: 2
Filed: Jun. 19, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 19, 2012
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CHERYL R. ZWART, Magistrate Judge. The defendant has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline and trial. Filing No. 37. Defense counsel was recently appointed and needs additional time to review the discovery and file defendant's anticipated motion to suppress. 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. 37), is granted. 2) The defendant's
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CHERYL R. ZWART, Magistrate Judge. The defendant has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline and trial. Filing No. 37. Defense counsel was recently appointed and needs additional time to review the discovery and file defendant's anticipated motion to suppress. 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. 37), is granted. 2) The defendant's p..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CHERYL R. ZWART, Magistrate Judge.
The defendant has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline and trial. Filing No. 37. Defense counsel was recently appointed and needs additional time to review the discovery and file defendant's anticipated motion to suppress. 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. 37), is granted.
2) The defendant's pretrial motions and briefs shall be filed on or before June 25, 2012.
3) Trial of this case is continued pending resolution of any pretrial motions filed.
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 June 18, 2012 and June 25, 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
