Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. DELGADO-MEDINA, 8:14CR305. (2014)

Court: District Court, D. Nebraska Number: infdco20141010989 Visitors: 4
Filed: Oct. 09, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 09, 2014
Summary: ORDER F.A. GOSSETT, III, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court on the government's CONSENT MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINES [14]. The government seeks 21 additional days to provide Rule 16 Discovery, and 21 additional days for the defendant to file Pretrial Motions. In support of this motion, the government makes a professional representation to the Court that the Defendant has no objection to the requested extension. For good cause shown, I find that the motion should be granted. The go
More

ORDER

F.A. GOSSETT, III, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the court on the government's CONSENT MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINES [14]. The government seeks 21 additional days to provide Rule 16 Discovery, and 21 additional days for the defendant to file Pretrial Motions. In support of this motion, the government makes a professional representation to the Court that the Defendant has no objection to the requested extension. For good cause shown, I find that the motion should be granted. The government shall provide Rule 16 Discovery to the defendant by October 22, 2014. The defendant will be given an approximate 21-day extension to file Pretrial Motions. Pretrial Motions shall be filed by November 4, 2014.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Government's CONSENT MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINES [14] is granted. Rule 16 Discovery shall be provided by October 22, 2014. Pretrial motions shall be filed on or before November 4, 2014.

2. The defendant is ordered to file the affidavit required by NECrimR 12.1(a) regarding speedy trial as soon as practicable.

3. 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 today's date and November 4, 2014, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act for the reason defendant's counsel required 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)(8)(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