United States v. Perez, 8:19CR67. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20191029l51
Visitors: 5
Filed: Oct. 24, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 24, 2019
Summary: ORDER SUSAN M. BAZIS , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on Defendant Perez's Unopposed Motion to Continue [46]. The parties are engaged in plea negotiations and seek additional time to resolve this matter short of trial. Good cause having been shown, IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's Unopposed Motion to Continue [46] is granted as follows: 1. The jury trial, as to both defendants, now set for October 29, 2019, is continued to January 7, 2020. 2. In accordance with
Summary: ORDER SUSAN M. BAZIS , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on Defendant Perez's Unopposed Motion to Continue [46]. The parties are engaged in plea negotiations and seek additional time to resolve this matter short of trial. Good cause having been shown, IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's Unopposed Motion to Continue [46] is granted as follows: 1. The jury trial, as to both defendants, now set for October 29, 2019, is continued to January 7, 2020. 2. In accordance with ..
More
ORDER
SUSAN M. BAZIS, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on Defendant Perez's Unopposed Motion to Continue [46]. The parties are engaged in plea negotiations and seek additional time to resolve this matter short of trial. Good cause having been shown,
IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's Unopposed Motion to Continue [46] is granted as follows:
1. The jury trial, as to both defendants, now set for October 29, 2019, is continued to January 7, 2020.
2. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the court finds that the ends of justice will be served by granting this continuance and outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Any additional time arising as a result of the granting of this motion, that is, the time between today's date and January 7, 2020, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act. Failure to grant a continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B)(iv).
3. No further continuances will be granted without a hearing before the undersigned magistrate judge.
Source: Leagle
