U.S. v. MILLER, 4:14PO3000. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20141006c15
Visitors: 21
Filed: Sep. 30, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 30, 2014
Summary: ORDER CHERYL R. ZWART, Magistrate Judge. The government has moved to continue the status conference, (filing no. 19), because the Defendant is being screened for Pretrial Diversion, and the Pretrial Diversion officer needs additional time to complete that investigation. 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) The government's motion to continue, (filing no. 19), is granted.
Summary: ORDER CHERYL R. ZWART, Magistrate Judge. The government has moved to continue the status conference, (filing no. 19), because the Defendant is being screened for Pretrial Diversion, and the Pretrial Diversion officer needs additional time to complete that investigation. 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) The government's motion to continue, (filing no. 19), is granted. ..
More
ORDER
CHERYL R. ZWART, Magistrate Judge.
The government has moved to continue the status conference, (filing no. 19), because the Defendant is being screened for Pretrial Diversion, and the Pretrial Diversion officer needs additional time to complete that investigation. 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) The government's motion to continue, (filing no. 19), is granted.
2) A status conference with the undersigned magistrate judge will be held in Courtroom 2, Lincoln Federal Building, on November 4, 2014 at 10:30 a.m. to discuss possible trial scheduling.
3) Based upon the representations of counsel, the Court further finds that the ends of justice will be served by further delaying the scheduling of trial; and those purposes outweigh the interest of the defendant and the public in a speedy trial. Accordingly, the additional time arising as a result of the granting of the motion, the time between today's date and November 4, 2014, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, because although counsel have been diligent, 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)(7).
Source: Leagle
