U.S. v. HIGH ELK, 8:15CR324. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20151215b50
Visitors: 2
Filed: Dec. 14, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 14, 2015
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Kiefer L. High Elk (High Elk) (Filing No. 25). High Elk seeks until January 14, 2016, in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. High Elk's counsel represents that High Elk will file an affidavit wherein he consents to the motion and acknowledges he understands the additional time may be excludable time for the purposes of the Spee
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Kiefer L. High Elk (High Elk) (Filing No. 25). High Elk seeks until January 14, 2016, in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. High Elk's counsel represents that High Elk will file an affidavit wherein he consents to the motion and acknowledges he understands the additional time may be excludable time for the purposes of the Speed..
More
ORDER
THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Kiefer L. High Elk (High Elk) (Filing No. 25). High Elk seeks until January 14, 2016, in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. High Elk's counsel represents that High Elk will file an affidavit wherein he consents to the motion and acknowledges he understands the additional time may be excludable time for the purposes of the Speedy Trial Act. High Elk's counsel represents that government's counsel has no objection to the motion. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted.
IT IS ORDERED:
Defendant High Elk's motion for an extension of time (Filing No. 25) is granted. High Elk is given until on or before January 14, 2016, 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 December 14, 2015, and January 14, 2016, 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