CONTINUANCE ORDER

LOIS H. GOODMAN, Magistrate Judge.

This matter having come before the Court on the joint application of Paul J. Fishman, United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey (by Molly Lorber, Assistant U.S. Attorney), and defendant Jamal Williams (by Lisa Van Hoeck, Esq.), for an order granting a continuance of the proceedings in the above-captioned matter so that the defendant will have additional time to consult with counsel, the opportunity to meet with the Government to discuss the charges and review pre-indictment discovery, and so that the parties may discuss a pre-indictment resolution to this matter; and the defendant being aware that he has the right to have the matter submitted to a grand jury within thirty days of the date of his initial appearance pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161(b); and the defendant being aware that he has the right to proceed to trial within 120 days of his arrival in the receiving State (i.e., this District) under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act ("IADA"); and the defendant having consented to this continuance and he and/or his counsel having waived such right on his behalf and with his concurrence in open court; and the United States having no opposition; and this being the fourth continuance sought by the parties, and for good cause shown;

IT IS THE FINDING OF THIS COURT that this action should be continued for the following reasons:

(1) The defendant, whose attorney has signed below, through his counsel, has requested additional time to consult with counsel and in order to allow the opportunity to meet with the Government to discuss the charges and review pre-indictment discovery;

(2) The United States and the defendant have jointly represented that the parties desire additional time to discuss a pre-indictment resolution to this matter, which would render any subsequent trial of this matter unnecessary;

(3) Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161(h)(7), the ends of justice served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial;

(4) Pursuant to the IADA, article IV(c), good cause for this continuance request has been shown and this continuance request of the parties, including its length, is reasonable and necessary to allow the defendant sufficient time to consult with counsel and the government to discuss a potential resolution to this case.

IT IS, therefore, on this 26th day of April, 2017,

ORDERED that this action be, and it hereby is, continued from the date of this Order through and including June 26, 2017; and it is further

ORDERED that the period from the date of this Order through and including June 26, 2017 shall be excludable in computing time under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974; and it is further

ORDERED that the period from the date of this Order through and including June 26, 2017 shall be excludable in computing the 120 days within which the defendant is entitled to proceed to trial under the IADA.