U.S. v. Pope, 8:16CR59. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20160518c71
Visitors: 3
Filed: May 17, 2016
Latest Update: May 17, 2016
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the motions for an extension of time by defendants Preston Pope (Pope) (Filing No. 36) and Jeron Morris (Morris) (Filing No. 35). Pope and Morris seek an extension in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order (Filing Nos. 11 and 22). Upon consideration, the motions will be granted. IT IS ORDERED: Defendant Pope's and Morris' motions for an extension of time (Filing Nos. 36 and 35
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the motions for an extension of time by defendants Preston Pope (Pope) (Filing No. 36) and Jeron Morris (Morris) (Filing No. 35). Pope and Morris seek an extension in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order (Filing Nos. 11 and 22). Upon consideration, the motions will be granted. IT IS ORDERED: Defendant Pope's and Morris' motions for an extension of time (Filing Nos. 36 and 35)..
More
ORDER
THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on the motions for an extension of time by defendants Preston Pope (Pope) (Filing No. 36) and Jeron Morris (Morris) (Filing No. 35). Pope and Morris seek an extension in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order (Filing Nos. 11 and 22). Upon consideration, the motions will be granted.
IT IS ORDERED:
Defendant Pope's and Morris' motions for an extension of time (Filing Nos. 36 and 35) are granted. Pope and Morris are given until on or before May 23, 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 May 17, 2016, and May 23, 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
