U.S. v. GONZALEZ-LEGARDA, 4:15CR3101. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20160226d19
Visitors: 3
Filed: Feb. 25, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 25, 2016
Summary: ORDER CHERYL R. ZWART , Magistrate Judge . Defendant Gonzalez-Legarda has moved to continue the trial and pretrial motion deadlines, (filing nos. 75 & 76), because the defendant has new counsel who needs additional time review this case and confer with the defendant 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's m
Summary: ORDER CHERYL R. ZWART , Magistrate Judge . Defendant Gonzalez-Legarda has moved to continue the trial and pretrial motion deadlines, (filing nos. 75 & 76), because the defendant has new counsel who needs additional time review this case and confer with the defendant 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's mo..
More
ORDER
CHERYL R. ZWART, Magistrate Judge.
Defendant Gonzalez-Legarda has moved to continue the trial and pretrial motion deadlines, (filing nos. 75 & 76), because the defendant has new counsel who needs additional time review this case and confer with the defendant 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's motions to continue, (filing nos. 75 & 76), are granted.
2) As to all defendants, pretrial motions and briefs shall be filed on or before April 25, 2016.
3) As to all defendants, trial of this case is continued pending resolution of any pretrial motions filed.
4) The ends of justice served by granting the motion to continue outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, and as to all defendants, the additional time arising as a result of the granting of the motion, the time between today's date and April 25, 2016, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, because despite counsel's due diligence, 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)(7)(A) & (B).
Source: Leagle
