U.S. v. MACOMBER, 8:10CR220. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20120727964
Visitors: 2
Filed: Jul. 26, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 26, 2012
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Stephen Alan Macomber (Macomber) (Filing No. 52). Macomber seeks until August 31, 2012, in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. In his pro se motion, Macomber acknowledge he understands the additional time may be excludable time for the purposes of the Speedy Trial Act. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted. IT IS ORDERED:
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Stephen Alan Macomber (Macomber) (Filing No. 52). Macomber seeks until August 31, 2012, in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. In his pro se motion, Macomber acknowledge he understands the additional time may be excludable time for the purposes of the Speedy Trial Act. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted. IT IS ORDERED: ..
More
ORDER
THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Stephen Alan Macomber (Macomber) (Filing No. 52). Macomber seeks until August 31, 2012, in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. In his pro se motion, Macomber acknowledge he understands the additional time may be excludable time for the purposes of the Speedy Trial Act. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted.
IT IS ORDERED:
Defendant Macomber's motion for an extension of time (Filing No. 52) is granted. Macomber is given until on or before August 31, 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 July 26, 2012, and August 31, 2011, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act for the reason defendant requires additional time to adequately prepare the case, taking into consideration due diligence, 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
