OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

B. JANICE ELLINGTON, Magistrate Judge.

On December 14, 2019, Defendants Rodriguez, Palacios, and Trevino jointly moved for a continuance of the final pretrial conference and jury selection and trial because the Defendants and their counsel had not yet had adequate time to review the discovery and the Defendants had not had adequate time to consider whether he wished to have a trial or plead guilty (D.E. 140). The United States was unopposed to the motion.

Under the Speedy Trial Act, a district court may grant a continuance and exclude the resulting delay from the time in which a trial must commence if it makes on-therecord findings that the ends of justice served by granting the continuance outweigh the public's and defendant's interests in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7).

Having considered the Defendant's motion, the Court finds that the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny counsel for the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the ends of justice are served by granting a continuance in this case and outweigh the best interests of the public and Defendant in a speedy trial, and the period of the continuance is excluded from speedy trial computation.

The Court GRANTS the Defendants' joint motion (D.E. 140) and CONTINUES the final pretrial conference until February 26, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. before Hon. Jason B. Libby, and schedules the jury selection and trial for March 9, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. before Hon. David S. Morales.