U.S. v. MANJARREZ-SANCHEZ, 8:15CR134. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20150527c46
Visitors: 13
Filed: May 26, 2015
Latest Update: May 26, 2015
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Julian Anacleto Manjarrez-Sanchez (Manjarrez-Sanchez) (Filing No. 46). Manjarrez-Sanchez seeks until June 1, 2015, in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. Manjarrez-Sanchez's counsel represents that government's counsel has no objection to the motion. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted. IT IS ORDERED: Defendant Ma
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Julian Anacleto Manjarrez-Sanchez (Manjarrez-Sanchez) (Filing No. 46). Manjarrez-Sanchez seeks until June 1, 2015, in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. Manjarrez-Sanchez's counsel represents that government's counsel has no objection to the motion. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted. IT IS ORDERED: Defendant Man..
More
ORDER
THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Julian Anacleto Manjarrez-Sanchez (Manjarrez-Sanchez) (Filing No. 46). Manjarrez-Sanchez seeks until June 1, 2015, in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. Manjarrez-Sanchez's counsel represents that government's counsel has no objection to the motion. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted.
IT IS ORDERED:
Defendant Manjarrez-Sanchez's motion for an extension of time (Filing No. 46) is granted. Manjarrez-Sanchez is given until on or before June 1, 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 May 26, 2015, and June 1, 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 requires 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
