U.S. v. Shenefelt, CR18-093 RSM. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20180518f18
Visitors: 3
Filed: May 17, 2018
Latest Update: May 17, 2018
Summary: ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ , Chief District Judge . This matter comes before the Court upon the parties' stipulated motion to continue the trial date. Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, and based on the facts set forth in the stipulation of the parties, the Court FINDS as follows: 1. That failure to grant a continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account
Summary: ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ , Chief District Judge . This matter comes before the Court upon the parties' stipulated motion to continue the trial date. Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, and based on the facts set forth in the stipulation of the parties, the Court FINDS as follows: 1. That failure to grant a continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account t..
More
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, Chief District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court upon the parties' stipulated motion to continue the trial date. Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, and based on the facts set forth in the stipulation of the parties, the Court FINDS as follows:
1. That failure to grant a continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii) and (iv);
2. That the case is complex due to the nature of the prosecution such that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation within the time limits specified within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii);
3. That failure to grant such a continuance in the proceeding would be likely to make a continuation of such proceeding impossible and result in a miscarriage of justice; and
4. That the ends of justice will be served by ordering a continuance in the case, that a continuance is necessary to ensure effective trial preparation, and that these factors outweigh the best interests of the public and defendants in a speedy trial, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).
The Court therefore ORDERS that the motions deadline and trial date in this matter be continued. The motions deadline is reset to August 3, 2018. The trial date is reset to September 10, 2018. The period of time from the filing of the motion to continue to the new trial date is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161 et seq.
Source: Leagle
