Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. RAMIREZ-CHAVEZ, 4:17CR3067. (2017)

Court: District Court, D. Nebraska Number: infdco20170725b04 Visitors: 7
Filed: Jul. 24, 2017
Latest Update: Jul. 24, 2017
Summary: ORDER CHERYL R. ZWART , Magistrate Judge . Defendant has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline and trial, (Filing Nos. 19 and 20), because Defendant has new counsel who needs additional time review this case and confer with the defendant before deciding if pretrial motions should be filed. The motions to continue are unopposed. Based on the showing set forth in the motions, the court finds the motions should be granted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1) Defendant's motions to contin
More

ORDER

Defendant has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline and trial, (Filing Nos. 19 and 20), because Defendant has new counsel who needs additional time review this case and confer with the defendant before deciding if pretrial motions should be filed. The motions to continue are unopposed. Based on the showing set forth in the motions, the court finds the motions should be granted. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

1) Defendant's motions to continue, (Filing Nos. 19 and 20), are granted. 2) Pretrial motions and briefs shall be filed on or before September 8, 2017. 3) Trial of this case is set to commence before the Honorable John M. Gerrard, United States District Judge, in Courtroom 1, United States Courthouse, Lincoln, Nebraska, at 9:00 a.m. on October 2, 2017, or as soon thereafter as the case may be called, for a duration of three (3) trial days. Jury selection will be held at commencement of trial. 4) The ends of justice served by granting the motion to continue 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 September 8, 2017 shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, because although counsel have been duly diligent, 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)(1) & (h)(7). Failing to timely object to this order as provided under this court's local rules will be deemed a waiver of any right to later claim the time should not have been excluded under the Speedy Trial Act.
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