Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Cross, 19-318. (2020)

Court: District Court, D. New Jersey Number: infdco20200228b88 Visitors: 20
Filed: Feb. 11, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 11, 2020
Summary: ORDER FOR A CONTINUANCE CLAIRE C. CECCHI , District Judge . This matter having come before the Court on the joint application of Craig Carpenito, United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey (by Desiree Grace Latzer, Assistant United States Attorney), and defendant Qaadir Cross (by Ruth Liebesman, Esq.), for an order granting a continuance of the proceedings in the above-captioned matter from the date this Order is signed through and including April 30, 2020, to permit defense coun
More

ORDER FOR A CONTINUANCE

This matter having come before the Court on the joint application of Craig Carpenito, United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey (by Desiree Grace Latzer, Assistant United States Attorney), and defendant Qaadir Cross (by Ruth Liebesman, Esq.), for an order granting a continuance of the proceedings in the above-captioned matter from the date this Order is signed through and including April 30, 2020, to permit defense counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation in this matter and to allow the parties to enter into plea negotiations; 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 three prior continuances having been entered; and the United States having no opposition; and for good and sufficient cause shown.

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

(1) Both the United States and the defendant seek additional time to enter into plea negotiations, which would render any subsequent trial of this matter unnecessary;

(2) The defendant has consented to the aforementioned continuance;

(3) The grant of a continuance likely will conserve judicial resources; and;

(4) As a result of the foregoing, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161(h)(7), the ends of justice served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

(5) 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.

WHEREFORE, it is on this 11 day of February, 2020;

ORDERED that this action be, and it hereby is, continued from the date this Order is signed through and including April 30, 2020; and it is further

ORDERED that the period from the date this Order is signed through and including April 30, 2020, and shall be excludable in computing time under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974.

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