Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Serrato, 4:20CR3009. (2020)

Court: District Court, D. Nebraska Number: infdco20200309466 Visitors: 10
Filed: Mar. 02, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: ORDER CHERYL R. ZWART , Magistrate Judge . Defendant has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline, (Filing No. 23), because Defendant has recently received additional discovery from the government and needs to review that discovery before deciding if pretrial motions should be filed. 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
More

ORDER

Defendant has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline, (Filing No. 23), because Defendant has recently received additional discovery from the government and needs to review that discovery before deciding if pretrial motions should be filed. 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. 23), is granted. 2) Pretrial motions and briefs shall be filed on or before April 10, 2020. 3) Trial of this case is set to commence before the Honorable John M. Gerrard, Chief United States District Judge, in Courtroom 1, United States Courthouse, Lincoln, Nebraska, at 9:00 a.m. on May 11, 2020, or as soon thereafter as the case may be called, for a duration of four (4) trial days. Jury selection will be held at commencement of trial. 4) 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 time between today's date and April 10, 2020 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

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer