United States v. Guzman, 4:19CR3062. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20190724c21
Visitors: 10
Filed: Jul. 23, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 23, 2019
Summary: ORDER CHERYL R. ZWART , Magistrate Judge . Defendant has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline, (Filing No. 22), because Defendant needs to consider and decide whether to enter a guilty plea before deciding whether to file pretrial motions. The motion to continue is unopposed. Based on the showing set forth in the motion, the court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1) Defendant's motion to continue, (Filing No. 22), is granted. 2) Pretrial motions a
Summary: ORDER CHERYL R. ZWART , Magistrate Judge . Defendant has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline, (Filing No. 22), because Defendant needs to consider and decide whether to enter a guilty plea before deciding whether to file pretrial motions. The motion to continue is unopposed. Based on the showing set forth in the motion, the court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1) Defendant's motion to continue, (Filing No. 22), is granted. 2) Pretrial motions an..
More
ORDER
CHERYL R. ZWART, Magistrate Judge.
Defendant has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline, (Filing No. 22), because Defendant needs to consider and decide whether to enter a guilty plea before deciding whether to file pretrial motions. The motion to continue is unopposed. Based on the showing set forth in the motion, the court finds the motion should be granted. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1) Defendant's motion to continue, (Filing No. 22), is granted.
2) Pretrial motions and briefs shall be filed on or before August 23, 2019.
3) 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 August 23, 2019 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
