Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. MITCHELL, 15-97. (2015)

Court: District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania Number: infdco20150929e58 Visitors: 20
Filed: Sep. 28, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 28, 2015
Summary: ORDER OF COURT MAURICE B. COHILL , District Judge . AND NOW, to-wit, this 28 th day of September, 2015, upon consideration of the foregoing Motion for Pre-Guilt Presentence Investigation, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that said Motion is GRANTED and that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(e) (1), the United States Probation Office is directed to conduct a complete criminal history investigation of Defendant Donald Mitchell for the purpose of determining the D
More

ORDER OF COURT

AND NOW, to-wit, this 28th day of September, 2015, upon consideration of the foregoing Motion for Pre-Guilt Presentence Investigation, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that said Motion is GRANTED and that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(e) (1), the United States Probation Office is directed to conduct a complete criminal history investigation of Defendant Donald Mitchell for the purpose of determining the Defendant's criminal history points and category, including career offender or armed career criminal status.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the United States Probation Office shall prepare the report regarding the same and disclose the Report to the Defendant's counsel, counsel for the Government and the Defendant on or before November 23, 2015.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the extension of time caused by the preparation of the Pre-Guilt Presentence Report, from the date of this Order until the filing of the Pre-Guilt Investigation Report, be deemed excusable delay under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq. Specifically, the Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting this extension outweigh the best interests of the public and the Defendant to a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h) (8) (A), et seq., since, for the reasons which are stated in Defendant's motion, the failure to grant such continuance would deny counsel for the Defendant sufficient time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h) (7) (B) (iv), et seq.

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