United States v. Gandy, 8:19CR267. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20191015e49
Visitors: 4
Filed: Oct. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 11, 2019
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL D. NELSON , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on Defendant's UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR FILING PRETRIAL MOTIONS [13]. For good cause shown, I find that the motion should be granted. Defendant will be given an approximate 60-day extension. Pretrial Motions shall be filed by December 16, 2019. IT IS ORDERED: 1. Defendant's UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR FILING PRETRIAL MOTIONS [13] is granted. Pretrial motions shall be filed on or be
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL D. NELSON , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on Defendant's UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR FILING PRETRIAL MOTIONS [13]. For good cause shown, I find that the motion should be granted. Defendant will be given an approximate 60-day extension. Pretrial Motions shall be filed by December 16, 2019. IT IS ORDERED: 1. Defendant's UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR FILING PRETRIAL MOTIONS [13] is granted. Pretrial motions shall be filed on or bef..
More
ORDER
MICHAEL D. NELSON, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on Defendant's UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR FILING PRETRIAL MOTIONS [13]. For good cause shown, I find that the motion should be granted. Defendant will be given an approximate 60-day extension. Pretrial Motions shall be filed by December 16, 2019.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Defendant's UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONTINUE DEADLINE FOR FILING PRETRIAL MOTIONS [13] is granted. Pretrial motions shall be filed on or before December 16, 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 today's date, and December 16, 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
