U.S. v. MARTIN, 4:14CR3020. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20140327956
Visitors: 17
Filed: Mar. 25, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 25, 2014
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CHERY R. ZWART, Magistrate Judge. Defendant Audrey Glenn has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline, (filing no. 27), because the defendant and defense counsel need additional time to fully review the discovery received before deciding if pretrial motions should be filed. The motion to continue is unopposed. Based on the showing set forth in the motion, the court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1) Defendant Audrey Glenn's motion to
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CHERY R. ZWART, Magistrate Judge. Defendant Audrey Glenn has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline, (filing no. 27), because the defendant and defense counsel need additional time to fully review the discovery received before deciding if pretrial motions should be filed. The motion to continue is unopposed. Based on the showing set forth in the motion, the court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1) Defendant Audrey Glenn's motion to ..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CHERY R. ZWART, Magistrate Judge.
Defendant Audrey Glenn has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline, (filing no. 27), because the defendant and defense counsel need additional time to fully review the discovery received before deciding if pretrial motions should be filed. The motion to continue is unopposed. Based on the showing set forth in the motion, the court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1) Defendant Audrey Glenn's motion to continue, (filing no. 27), is granted.
2) As to both defendants, pretrial motions and briefs shall be filed on or before April 28, 2014.
3) As to both defendants, trial of this case is continued pending resolution of any pretrial motions filed.
4) The ends of justice served by granting the motion to continue outweigh the interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. Accordingly, as to both defendants, the additional time arising as a result of the granting of the motion, the time between today's date and April 28, 2014, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, because despite counsel's due diligence, additional time is needed to adequately prepare this case for trial and failing to grant additional time might result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1), (h)(6) & (h)(7).
Source: Leagle
