U.S. v. ORTIZ-CERVANTES, 8:14CR178. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20141231a94
Visitors: 7
Filed: Dec. 30, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 30, 2014
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Roberto Carlos Ortiz-Cervantes (Ortiz-Cervantes) (Filing No. 26). The defendant seeks an additional twenty-one days in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. Ortiz-Cervantes' counsel represents that government's counsel has no objection to the motion. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted. IT IS ORDERED: Defendant Ortiz-Cer
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Roberto Carlos Ortiz-Cervantes (Ortiz-Cervantes) (Filing No. 26). The defendant seeks an additional twenty-one days in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. Ortiz-Cervantes' counsel represents that government's counsel has no objection to the motion. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted. IT IS ORDERED: Defendant Ortiz-Cerv..
More
ORDER
THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Roberto Carlos Ortiz-Cervantes (Ortiz-Cervantes) (Filing No. 26). The defendant seeks an additional twenty-one days in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. Ortiz-Cervantes' counsel represents that government's counsel has no objection to the motion. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted.
IT IS ORDERED:
Defendant Ortiz-Cervantes' motion for an extension of time (Filing No. 26) is granted. Ortiz-Cervantes is given until on or before January 20, 2015, in which to file pretrial motions pursuant to the progression order. 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 December 30, 2014, and January 20, 2015, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act for the reason defendants' counsel require 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
