U.S. v. BAKER, 8:14CR62. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20140613b44
Visitors: 20
Filed: Jun. 12, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 12, 2014
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court on the motion to continue by defendant Keith D. Baker (Baker) (Filing No. 22). Baker seeks a continuance of the trial scheduled for June 16, 2014. Baker has submitted an affidavit in accordance with paragraph 9 of the progression order whereby Baker consents to the motion and acknowledges he understands the additional time may be excludable time for the purposes of the Speedy Trial Act (Filing No. 23). Baker's counsel r
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court on the motion to continue by defendant Keith D. Baker (Baker) (Filing No. 22). Baker seeks a continuance of the trial scheduled for June 16, 2014. Baker has submitted an affidavit in accordance with paragraph 9 of the progression order whereby Baker consents to the motion and acknowledges he understands the additional time may be excludable time for the purposes of the Speedy Trial Act (Filing No. 23). Baker's counsel re..
More
ORDER
THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on the motion to continue by defendant Keith D. Baker (Baker) (Filing No. 22). Baker seeks a continuance of the trial scheduled for June 16, 2014. Baker has submitted an affidavit in accordance with paragraph 9 of the progression order whereby Baker consents to the motion and acknowledges he understands the additional time may be excludable time for the purposes of the Speedy Trial Act (Filing No. 23). Baker's counsel represents that government's counsel has no objection to the motion. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Baker's motion to continue trial (Filing No. 22) is granted.
2. Trial of this matter is re-scheduled for August 25, 2014, 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 defendant in a speedy trial. The additional time arising as a result of the granting of the motion, i.e., the time between June 12, 2014, and August 25, 2014, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act for the reason that defendant's counsel requires 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
