U.S. v. GONZALEZ, 8:15CR178. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20160502c11
Visitors: 35
Filed: Apr. 29, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 29, 2016
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Antonio Benitez Gonzalez (Filing No. 117). Gonzalez seeks until May 29, 2016, in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. Gonzalez's counsel represents that government's counsel has no objection to the motion. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted. IT IS ORDERED: Defendant Gonzalez's motion for an extension of time (Fili
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Antonio Benitez Gonzalez (Filing No. 117). Gonzalez seeks until May 29, 2016, in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. Gonzalez's counsel represents that government's counsel has no objection to the motion. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted. IT IS ORDERED: Defendant Gonzalez's motion for an extension of time (Filin..
More
ORDER
THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Antonio Benitez Gonzalez (Filing No. 117). Gonzalez seeks until May 29, 2016, in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. Gonzalez's counsel represents that government's counsel has no objection to the motion. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted.
IT IS ORDERED:
Defendant Gonzalez's motion for an extension of time (Filing No. 117) is granted. Gonzalez is given until on or before May 31, 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 April 29, 2016, and May 31, 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
