U.S. v. WOLLMAN, 8:17CR89. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20170526e29
Visitors: 35
Filed: May 24, 2017
Latest Update: May 24, 2017
Summary: ORDER SUSAN M. BAZIS , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the Defendant's Motion for Continuance of Jury Trial [17]. Counsel is seeking additional time conduct discovery. Defendant has complied with NECrimR 12.1(a). For good cause shown, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Continuance of Jury Trial [17] is granted as follows: 1. The jury trial, now set for June 6, 2017 is continued to August 8, 2017. 2. The defendant has filed the affidavit required by paragraph 9 of
Summary: ORDER SUSAN M. BAZIS , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on the Defendant's Motion for Continuance of Jury Trial [17]. Counsel is seeking additional time conduct discovery. Defendant has complied with NECrimR 12.1(a). For good cause shown, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Continuance of Jury Trial [17] is granted as follows: 1. The jury trial, now set for June 6, 2017 is continued to August 8, 2017. 2. The defendant has filed the affidavit required by paragraph 9 of t..
More
ORDER
SUSAN M. BAZIS, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on the Defendant's Motion for Continuance of Jury Trial [17]. Counsel is seeking additional time conduct discovery. Defendant has complied with NECrimR 12.1(a). For good cause shown,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Continuance of Jury Trial [17] is granted as follows:
1. The jury trial, now set for June 6, 2017 is continued to August 8, 2017.
2. The defendant has filed the affidavit required by paragraph 9 of the progression order and NE.CrimR 12.1(a) forthwith.
3. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the court finds that the ends of justice will be served by granting this continuance and outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Any additional time arising as a result of the granting of this motion, that is, the time between today's date and August 8, 2017, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act. Failure to grant a continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B)(iv).
Source: Leagle
