Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. PADILLA-OLMEDO, 8:16CR231. (2016)

Court: District Court, D. Nebraska Number: infdco20161005g47 Visitors: 11
Filed: Oct. 04, 2016
Latest Update: Oct. 04, 2016
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the motion to extend the pretrial motion deadline and to continue trial by defendant Kevin Padilla-Olmedo (Padilla-Olmedo) (Filing No.34). The court heard the motion during a detention hearing on October 4, 2016. Padilla-Olmedo was present with his counsel, Craig M. Martin. The United States was represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Douglas Amen. Padilla-Olmedo agreed to the motion and understood the additional
More

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the motion to extend the pretrial motion deadline and to continue trial by defendant Kevin Padilla-Olmedo (Padilla-Olmedo) (Filing No.34). The court heard the motion during a detention hearing on October 4, 2016. Padilla-Olmedo was present with his counsel, Craig M. Martin. The United States was represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Douglas Amen. Padilla-Olmedo agreed to the motion and understood the additional time required by the motion would be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act. The motion will be granted.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The motion to continue trial is granted. The trial setting for October 31, 2016, before Judge Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., is canceled. Trial will be rescheduled following the disposition of any pretrial motions or the expiration of the pretrial motion deadline.

2. Defendant Padilla-Olmedo's motion for an extension of the pretrial motion deadline is granted. Padilla-Olmedo is given until on or before November 4, 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 October 5, 2016, and November 4, 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

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer