U.S. v. CERVANTES, 8:17CR103. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20170720a43
Visitors: 18
Filed: Jul. 19, 2017
Latest Update: Jul. 19, 2017
Summary: ORDER JOHN M. GERRARD , District Judge . This matter came on for hearing today on defendant Rigoberto Cervantes' objection (filing no. 58) to magistrate judge's order (filing no. 51) denying the defendant's motion to enlarge time for filing pretrial motions. Defendant had previously moved to enlarge the time to file pretrial motions. This motion was unopposed by the Government. The magistrate judge denied the defendant's motion and, on July 17, 2017, the defendant filed an objection to the
Summary: ORDER JOHN M. GERRARD , District Judge . This matter came on for hearing today on defendant Rigoberto Cervantes' objection (filing no. 58) to magistrate judge's order (filing no. 51) denying the defendant's motion to enlarge time for filing pretrial motions. Defendant had previously moved to enlarge the time to file pretrial motions. This motion was unopposed by the Government. The magistrate judge denied the defendant's motion and, on July 17, 2017, the defendant filed an objection to the m..
More
ORDER
JOHN M. GERRARD, District Judge.
This matter came on for hearing today on defendant Rigoberto Cervantes' objection (filing no. 58) to magistrate judge's order (filing no. 51) denying the defendant's motion to enlarge time for filing pretrial motions. Defendant had previously moved to enlarge the time to file pretrial motions. This motion was unopposed by the Government. The magistrate judge denied the defendant's motion and, on July 17, 2017, the defendant filed an objection to the magistrate judge's order.
Based on the showing of voluminous discovery, and the represented need to file a motion to suppress evidence, the Court finds that the defendant's objection should be sustained and the motion for enlargement of time to file pretrial motions will be granted. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1) Defendant's objection (filing no. 58) to magistrate judge's order (filing no. 51) is sustained.
2) All pretrial motions shall be filed on or before 5:00 p.m. on July 21, 2017.
3) At this time, the trial of this case is scheduled to commence on August 21, 2017 at 9:00 a.m.
4) The ends of justice served by granting the motion to enlarge time outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, and the additional time arising as a result of the granting of the motion, the time between today's date and July 21, 2017, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, because despite counsel's diligence, additional time is needed to adequately prepare this case for trial and failing to grant additional time might result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B).
Source: Leagle
