U.S. v. HOWARD, 2:15-mj-00627-NJK. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20160202e39
Visitors: 17
Filed: Feb. 01, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 01, 2016
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 38) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendant's motion to continue the extradition hearing set for February 2, 2016. Docket No. 38. Defendant requests a 60-day continuance in order to allow the United States to determine if the Amparo action filed by Defendant's retained counsel was granted and his arrest warrant quashed. Id. at 2. The United States opposes the continuance, and states that the warrant issued in this case should have been
Summary: ORDER (Docket No. 38) NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendant's motion to continue the extradition hearing set for February 2, 2016. Docket No. 38. Defendant requests a 60-day continuance in order to allow the United States to determine if the Amparo action filed by Defendant's retained counsel was granted and his arrest warrant quashed. Id. at 2. The United States opposes the continuance, and states that the warrant issued in this case should have been a..
More
ORDER
(Docket No. 38)
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendant's motion to continue the extradition hearing set for February 2, 2016. Docket No. 38. Defendant requests a 60-day continuance in order to allow the United States to determine if the Amparo action filed by Defendant's retained counsel was granted and his arrest warrant quashed. Id. at 2. The United States opposes the continuance, and states that the warrant issued in this case should have been an arrest warrant rather than a re-arrest warrant, which is only a technical error. Docket No. 40 at 1-2. The United States submits that Defendant's team in Mexico has filed an action to review the sentence, which has not yet been decided. Id. at 2. The United States therefore contends that a valid arrest warrant has been issued and the extradition proceeding should continue as scheduled. Id.
The Court ordered Defendant to reply no later than 2:00 p.m. Docket No. 41. No reply has been filed. See Docket. Nonetheless, the Court finds that good cause exists to GRANT Defendant's motion in part. The extradition hearing is hereby continued to March 7, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 3B.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
