United States v. Jensen, 8:19CR300. (2020)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20200128d16
Visitors: 29
Filed: Jan. 27, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 27, 2020
Summary: ORDER SUSAN M. BAZIS , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on defendant Michelle Jensen's Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial [61]. Counsel needs additional time to resolve the matter short of trial. For good cause shown, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Continue Trial [61] is granted, as follows: 1. The jury trial, for both defendants, now set for February 18, 2020, is continued to April 27, 2020. 2. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(A), the court finds that t
Summary: ORDER SUSAN M. BAZIS , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the court on defendant Michelle Jensen's Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial [61]. Counsel needs additional time to resolve the matter short of trial. For good cause shown, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Continue Trial [61] is granted, as follows: 1. The jury trial, for both defendants, now set for February 18, 2020, is continued to April 27, 2020. 2. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(A), the court finds that th..
More
ORDER
SUSAN M. BAZIS, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on defendant Michelle Jensen's Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial [61]. Counsel needs additional time to resolve the matter short of trial. For good cause shown,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Continue Trial [61] is granted, as follows:
1. The jury trial, for both defendants, now set for February 18, 2020, is continued to April 27, 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 April 27, 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).
Source: Leagle
