U.S. v. FULTON, 8:15CR67. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20150326e13
Visitors: 14
Filed: Mar. 25, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 25, 2015
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Christina Venta (Venta) (Filing No. 28). Venta seeks an additional thirty (30) days in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. Venta's counsel represents that government's counsel has no objection to the motion. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted as to all defendants. IT IS ORDERED: Defendant Venta's motion for an
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Christina Venta (Venta) (Filing No. 28). Venta seeks an additional thirty (30) days in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. Venta's counsel represents that government's counsel has no objection to the motion. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted as to all defendants. IT IS ORDERED: Defendant Venta's motion for an e..
More
ORDER
THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Christina Venta (Venta) (Filing No. 28). Venta seeks an additional thirty (30) days in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. Venta's counsel represents that government's counsel has no objection to the motion. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted as to all defendants.
IT IS ORDERED:
Defendant Venta's motion for an extension of time (Filing No. 28) is granted. All defendants are given until on or before April 30, 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 defendants in a speedy trial. The additional time arising as a result of the granting of the motion, i.e., the time between March 25, 2015, and April 30, 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
