USA v. Bonner, 8:17CR222. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20180102913
Visitors: 6
Filed: Dec. 29, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 29, 2017
Summary: ORDER SUSAN M. BAZIS , Magistrate Judge . The defendant, Cardell Bonner, has moved to continue the trial (filing no. 37). The motion to continue is unopposed by counsel for the Government. Based on the showing set forth in the motion, the court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1) Defendant Cardell Bonner's unopposed motion to continue trial (filing no. 37) is granted. 2) The trial of this case is set to commence before the Honorable John M. Gerrard, United
Summary: ORDER SUSAN M. BAZIS , Magistrate Judge . The defendant, Cardell Bonner, has moved to continue the trial (filing no. 37). The motion to continue is unopposed by counsel for the Government. Based on the showing set forth in the motion, the court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1) Defendant Cardell Bonner's unopposed motion to continue trial (filing no. 37) is granted. 2) The trial of this case is set to commence before the Honorable John M. Gerrard, United S..
More
ORDER
SUSAN M. BAZIS, Magistrate Judge.
The defendant, Cardell Bonner, has moved to continue the trial (filing no. 37). The motion to continue is unopposed by counsel for the Government. Based on the showing set forth in the motion, the court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1) Defendant Cardell Bonner's unopposed motion to continue trial (filing no. 37) is granted.
2) The trial of this case is set to commence before the Honorable John M. Gerrard, United States District Judge, in the Special Proceedings Courtroom of the United States Courthouse, Omaha, Nebraska, at 9:00 a.m. on April 16, 2018, or as soon thereafter as the case may be called. Jury selection will be held at commencement of trial.
3) 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
