United States v. Perales, 8:19CR253. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20190917c57
Visitors: 10
Filed: Sep. 16, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 16, 2019
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL D. NELSON , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on Defendant's UNOPPOSED MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME FOR CONSIDERATION OF PRETRIAL MOTIONS [22]. For good cause shown, I find that the motion should be granted. Defendant will be given an approximate 39-day extension. Pretrial Motions shall be filed by October 25, 2019. IT IS ORDERED: 1. Defendant's UNOPPOSED MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME FOR CONSIDERATION OF PRETRIAL MOTIONS [22] is granted. Pretrial motions shall be filed
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL D. NELSON , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on Defendant's UNOPPOSED MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME FOR CONSIDERATION OF PRETRIAL MOTIONS [22]. For good cause shown, I find that the motion should be granted. Defendant will be given an approximate 39-day extension. Pretrial Motions shall be filed by October 25, 2019. IT IS ORDERED: 1. Defendant's UNOPPOSED MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME FOR CONSIDERATION OF PRETRIAL MOTIONS [22] is granted. Pretrial motions shall be filed ..
More
ORDER
MICHAEL D. NELSON, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on Defendant's UNOPPOSED MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME FOR CONSIDERATION OF PRETRIAL MOTIONS [22]. For good cause shown, I find that the motion should be granted. Defendant will be given an approximate 39-day extension. Pretrial Motions shall be filed by October 25, 2019.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Defendant's UNOPPOSED MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME FOR CONSIDERATION OF PRETRIAL MOTIONS [22] is granted. Pretrial motions shall be filed on or before October 25, 2019.
2. The ends of justice have been served by granting such motion and outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. The additional time arising as a result of the granting of the motion, i.e., the time between September 16, 2019, and October 25, 2019, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act for the reason defendant's counsel required additional time to adequately prepare the case, taking into consideration due diligence of counsel, and the novelty and complexity of this case. The failure to grant additional time might result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B).
Source: Leagle
