Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

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

Court: District Court, D. Nebraska Number: infdco20161230c86 Visitors: 20
Filed: Dec. 29, 2016
Latest Update: Dec. 29, 2016
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the motion to continue by defendant Kevin Padilla-Olmedo (Padilla-Olmedo) (Filing No. 54). Padilla-Olmedo seeks a continuance of the trial of this matter was scheduled for February 6, 2017. Padilla-Olmedo's counsel represents that government's counsel has no objection to the motion. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted, in part. Trial will be continued as to both defendants to March 6, 2017. Theis orde
More

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the motion to continue by defendant Kevin Padilla-Olmedo (Padilla-Olmedo) (Filing No. 54). Padilla-Olmedo seeks a continuance of the trial of this matter was scheduled for February 6, 2017. Padilla-Olmedo's counsel represents that government's counsel has no objection to the motion. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted, in part. Trial will be continued as to both defendants to March 6, 2017. Theis order is contingent upon Padilla-Olmedo filing the affidavit required by Paragraph 9 of the Progression Order (Filing No. 16) within ten business days of this order.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Padilla-Olmedo's motion to continue trial (Filing No. 54) is granted as set forth above.

2. Trial of this matter as to both defendants is re-scheduled for March 6, 2017, before Judge Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., and a jury. 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 December 29, 2016, and March 6, 2017, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act for the reason that defendants' counsel require additional time to adequately prepare the 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