U.S. v. BELMONT, 8:14CR375. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20150421f47
Visitors: 5
Filed: Apr. 17, 2015
Latest Update: Apr. 17, 2015
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the government's motion to continue (Filing No. 32). The court held a telephone conference with counsel on April 17, 2015. The government was represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Douglas R. Semisch and defendant Jeffrey Belmont (Belmont) was represented by Dean A. Stowers. There was no objection by defendant. In order to accommodate counsel's and expert witness schedules, the motion will be granted. IT IS ORD
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the government's motion to continue (Filing No. 32). The court held a telephone conference with counsel on April 17, 2015. The government was represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Douglas R. Semisch and defendant Jeffrey Belmont (Belmont) was represented by Dean A. Stowers. There was no objection by defendant. In order to accommodate counsel's and expert witness schedules, the motion will be granted. IT IS ORDE..
More
ORDER
THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on the government's motion to continue (Filing No. 32). The court held a telephone conference with counsel on April 17, 2015. The government was represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Douglas R. Semisch and defendant Jeffrey Belmont (Belmont) was represented by Dean A. Stowers. There was no objection by defendant. In order to accommodate counsel's and expert witness schedules, the motion will be granted.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The motion to continue trial (Filing No. 32) is granted.
2. Trial of this matter is re-scheduled for June 29, 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 April 17, 2015, and June 29, 2015, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act for the reason that counsel require additional time to adequately prepare the 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
