U.S. v. SWEENEY, 8:13CR413. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20141027856
Visitors: 17
Filed: Oct. 23, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 23, 2014
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court on the motion to continue by defendant Shane D. Sweeney (Sweeney) (Filing No. 24). Sweeney seeks a continuance of the trial of this matter which is scheduled for November 3, 2014, in order to complete a pretrial diversion program. Sweeney's counsel represents that government's counsel has no objection to the motion. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted. IT IS ORDERED: 1. Sweeney's motion to continue trial (
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court on the motion to continue by defendant Shane D. Sweeney (Sweeney) (Filing No. 24). Sweeney seeks a continuance of the trial of this matter which is scheduled for November 3, 2014, in order to complete a pretrial diversion program. Sweeney's counsel represents that government's counsel has no objection to the motion. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted. IT IS ORDERED: 1. Sweeney's motion to continue trial (F..
More
ORDER
THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on the motion to continue by defendant Shane D. Sweeney (Sweeney) (Filing No. 24). Sweeney seeks a continuance of the trial of this matter which is scheduled for November 3, 2014, in order to complete a pretrial diversion program. Sweeney's counsel represents that government's counsel has no objection to the motion. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Sweeney's motion to continue trial (Filing No. 24) is granted.
2. Trial of this matter is re-scheduled for April 6, 2015, before Senior 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 October 23, 2014, and April 6, 2015, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act for the reason that time is required for the defendant to complete a pretrial diversion program. The failure to grant additional time might result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(2).
Source: Leagle
