USA v. Points et al
Criminal

District of Nebraska, ned-8:2004-cr-00186-31451

ORDER the Defendant Arredondo-Cavada's motion for an extension of time to file pretrial motions. Arredondo-Cavada is given until on or before June 1, 2010, in which to file pretrial motions pursuant to the progression order. The ends of justic e have been served by granting such motion and outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. The time between April 12, 2010 and June 1, 2010 shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the speedy Trial Act as to Jesus Arredondo-Cavada (2). Pretrial Motion Deadline set for 6/1/2010. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

8:04-cr-00186-LSC-TDT Doc # 78 Filed: 04/12/10 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 200 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,)) 8:04CR186 Plaintiff,)) vs.) ORDER) JESUS ARREDONDO-CAVADA,)) Defendant.) This matter is before the court on the motion for an extension of time by defendant Jesus Arredondo-Cavada (Arredondo-Cavada) (Filing No. 77). Arredondo-Cavada seeks an additional forty-five days in which to file pretrial motions in accordance with the progression order. Arredondo- Cavada's counsel represents that Arredondo-Cavada will file an affidavit wherein he consents to the motion and acknowledges he understands the additional time may be excludable time for the purposes of the Speedy Trial Act. Arredondo-Cavada's counsel represents that government's counsel has no objection to the motion. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted. IT IS ORDERED: Defendant Arredondo-Cavada's motion for an extension of time (Filing No. 77) is granted. Arredondo-Cavada is given until on or before June 1, 2010, in which to file pretrial motions pursuant to the progression order. The ends of justice have been served by granting such motion and outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. The additional tim e arising as a result of the granting of the motion, i.e., the time between April 12, 2010 and June 1, 2010, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act for the reason defendant's counsel requires additional time to adequately prepare the case, taking into consideration due diligence of counsel, and the novelty and complexity of this case. The failure to grant additional time might result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B). DATED this 12th day of April, 2010. BY THE COURT: s/Thomas D. Thalken United States Magistrate Judge