U.S. v. Pope, 8:16CR59. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20160418823
Visitors: 5
Filed: Apr. 15, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 15, 2016
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendants Preston Pope (Pope) (Filing No. 33) and Jeron Morris (Morris) (Filing No. 32). Pope and Morris seek until May 16, 2016, in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. Upon consideration, the motions will be granted. IT IS ORDERED: Defendant Pope's and Morris' motions for an extension of time (Filing Nos. 33 and 32) are granted. The
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendants Preston Pope (Pope) (Filing No. 33) and Jeron Morris (Morris) (Filing No. 32). Pope and Morris seek until May 16, 2016, in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. Upon consideration, the motions will be granted. IT IS ORDERED: Defendant Pope's and Morris' motions for an extension of time (Filing Nos. 33 and 32) are granted. The ..
More
ORDER
THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendants Preston Pope (Pope) (Filing No. 33) and Jeron Morris (Morris) (Filing No. 32). Pope and Morris seek until May 16, 2016, in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. Upon consideration, the motions will be granted.
IT IS ORDERED:
Defendant Pope's and Morris' motions for an extension of time (Filing Nos. 33 and 32) are granted. The defendants are given until on or before May 16, 2016, in which to file pretrial motions pursuant to the progression order. The ends of justice have been served by granting such motions and outweigh the interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. The additional time arising as a result of the granting of the motions, i.e., the time between April 15, 2016, and May 16, 2016, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act for the reason defendants' counsel require 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
