U.S. v. HORTON, 4:15CR3022. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20150428b70
Visitors: 7
Filed: Apr. 27, 2015
Latest Update: Apr. 27, 2015
Summary: ORDER CHERYL R. ZWART , Magistrate Judge . Government has moved to set a status conference, (filing no. 20), because the parties desire to apprise the Court of the current status of the case, including progression and any other matters that need to be discussed with the Court. The motion to continue is unopposed. Based on the showing set forth in the motion, the court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1) Government's motion to set a status conference, (filing
Summary: ORDER CHERYL R. ZWART , Magistrate Judge . Government has moved to set a status conference, (filing no. 20), because the parties desire to apprise the Court of the current status of the case, including progression and any other matters that need to be discussed with the Court. The motion to continue is unopposed. Based on the showing set forth in the motion, the court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1) Government's motion to set a status conference, (filing ..
More
ORDER
CHERYL R. ZWART, Magistrate Judge.
Government has moved to set a status conference, (filing no. 20), because the parties desire to apprise the Court of the current status of the case, including progression and any other matters that need to be discussed with the Court. The motion to continue is unopposed. Based on the showing set forth in the motion, the court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1) Government's motion to set a status conference, (filing no. 20), is granted.
2) A status conference/change of plea with the undersigned magistrate judge will be held in Courtroom 2, Federal Building, 100 Centennial Mall North, Lincoln, NE on June 5, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. 30 minutes have been set aside for this hearing.
3) Based upon the representations of counsel, the Court further finds that the ends of justice will be served by further delaying the scheduling of trial; and those purposes outweigh the interest of the defendant and the public in a speedy trial. Accordingly, the additional time arising as a result of the granting of the motion, the time between today's date and June 5, 2015, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, because although counsel have been diligent, additional time is needed to adequately prepare this case for trial and failing to grant additional time might result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1) & (h)(7).
Source: Leagle
