Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. AGUILAR-PORTILO, 8:14CR306. (2014)

Court: District Court, D. Nebraska Number: infdco20140925d29 Visitors: 15
Filed: Sep. 24, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 24, 2014
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court on the oral motion of defendant Daniella Erickson (Erickson) for an extension of the pretrial motion deadline. The motion was made during the arraignment on the Indictment on September 24, 2014. The government had no objection to the motion and also moved for an extension of the discovery deadline. Erickson acknowledged the additional time needed for these motions would be excluded under the calculations under the Speed
More

ORDER

THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the court on the oral motion of defendant Daniella Erickson (Erickson) for an extension of the pretrial motion deadline. The motion was made during the arraignment on the Indictment on September 24, 2014. The government had no objection to the motion and also moved for an extension of the discovery deadline. Erickson acknowledged the additional time needed for these motions would be excluded under the calculations under the Speedy Trial Act. The oral motions were granted. The discovery deadline and pretrial motion deadline will be extended as to all defendants.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Erickson's motion for an extension of time to file pretrial motions is granted. The government's motion to extend the discovery deadline is granted. AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS, the discovery deadline is re-set for October 3, 2014, and the parties shall have to on or before December 19, 2014, in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order.

2. The ends of justice have been served by granting such motions and outweigh the interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. The additional time arising as a result of the granting of the motion, i.e., from September 24, 2014, to December 19, 2014, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act for the reason 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

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer