U.S. v. CHAPLAIN, 8:14CR409. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20150128f26
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jan. 26, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 26, 2015
Summary: ORDER F.A. GOSSETT, III, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court on defendant's MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE PRETRIAL MOTIONS [62]. For good cause shown, I find that the motion should be granted. The defendant will be given an approximate 5-day extension. Pretrial Motions shall be filed by January 28, 2015. IT IS ORDERED: 1. Defendant's MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE PRETRIAL MOTIONS [62] is granted. Pretrial motions shall be filed on or before January 28, 2015.
Summary: ORDER F.A. GOSSETT, III, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court on defendant's MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE PRETRIAL MOTIONS [62]. For good cause shown, I find that the motion should be granted. The defendant will be given an approximate 5-day extension. Pretrial Motions shall be filed by January 28, 2015. IT IS ORDERED: 1. Defendant's MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE PRETRIAL MOTIONS [62] is granted. Pretrial motions shall be filed on or before January 28, 2015. 2..
More
ORDER
F.A. GOSSETT, III, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on defendant's MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE PRETRIAL MOTIONS [62]. For good cause shown, I find that the motion should be granted. The defendant will be given an approximate 5-day extension. Pretrial Motions shall be filed by January 28, 2015.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Defendant's MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE PRETRIAL MOTIONS [62] is granted. Pretrial motions shall be filed on or before January 28, 2015.
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 January 28, 2015, 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
