Filed: Oct. 26, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 26, 2017
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DAVID A. FABER , Senior District Judge . Pending before the court are defendants' motions for a second continuance in this matter. ECF Nos. 369, 371, 373-377. The court GRANTS defendants' motions for the reasons below. In each motion, defense counsel requests additional time to review the government's Second Supplemental Response to Standard Discovery Requests. See ECF No. 360. Additionally, each motion represents that the U.S. Attorney's Office does not obj
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DAVID A. FABER , Senior District Judge . Pending before the court are defendants' motions for a second continuance in this matter. ECF Nos. 369, 371, 373-377. The court GRANTS defendants' motions for the reasons below. In each motion, defense counsel requests additional time to review the government's Second Supplemental Response to Standard Discovery Requests. See ECF No. 360. Additionally, each motion represents that the U.S. Attorney's Office does not obje..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DAVID A. FABER, Senior District Judge.
Pending before the court are defendants' motions for a second continuance in this matter. ECF Nos. 369, 371, 373-377. The court GRANTS defendants' motions for the reasons below.
In each motion, defense counsel requests additional time to review the government's Second Supplemental Response to Standard Discovery Requests. See ECF No. 360. Additionally, each motion represents that the U.S. Attorney's Office does not object to the proposed continuance.
The court believes that failure to grant the requested continuance would likely prejudice defense counsels' ability to effectively represent defendants. Because failure to grant the requested continuance would likely result in a miscarriage of justice, the court finds that the ends of justice outweigh the best interest of the defendants and the public in a speedy trial under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). In deciding to grant defendants' motions, the court considered the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B) and finds that denying the motion "would deny counsel for the defendant . . . the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence." 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
Deeming it proper to do so, the court GRANTS defendants' motions to continue.
Accordingly, the court ORDERS as follows:
I. Trial of this action is continued until Wednesday, January 3, 2018, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., in Beckley;
II. Pre-trial motions are to be filed on or before Tuesday, December 12, 2017;
III. A pretrial motions hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, December 19, 2017, at 10:30 a.m., in Charleston; and
IV. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the time from the filing of defendants' motions until the trial is excludable for purposes of the Speedy Trial Act.1
The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record, the United States Marshal for the Southern District of West Virginia, and the Probation Office of this court.
It is SO ORDERED
