U.S. v. MILLER, 4:15CR3062. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20151231886
Visitors: 5
Filed: Dec. 30, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 30, 2015
Summary: ORDER CHERYL R. ZWART , District Judge . Defendant Miller has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline because the defendant and defense counsel need additional time to fully review the discovery received before deciding if pretrial motions should be filed. 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) Defendant Miller's motion to continue, (Filing No. 23), is granted.
Summary: ORDER CHERYL R. ZWART , District Judge . Defendant Miller has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline because the defendant and defense counsel need additional time to fully review the discovery received before deciding if pretrial motions should be filed. 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) Defendant Miller's motion to continue, (Filing No. 23), is granted. 2..
More
ORDER
CHERYL R. ZWART, District Judge.
Defendant Miller has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline because the defendant and defense counsel need additional time to fully review the discovery received before deciding if pretrial motions should be filed. 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) Defendant Miller's motion to continue, (Filing No. 23), is granted.
2) Pretrial motions and briefs shall be filed on or before February 1, 2016.
3) A status conference will be at 10:30 a.m. on February 9, 2016 before the undersigned magistrate judge in Courtroom 2, United States Courthouse and Federal Building, 100 Centennial Mall North, Lincoln, Nebraska. The defendant, defense counsel, and counsel for the government shall attend the conference.
4) The Court further finds that the time between today's date and February 9, 2016 shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, because this case remains "unusual and complex," and continues to be exempted from the time restrictions of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii)i.
Source: Leagle
