From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Dodge

United States District Court, D. Nebraska
Nov 17, 2006
8:06CR310 (D. Neb. Nov. 17, 2006)

Opinion

8:06CR310.

November 17, 2006


ORDER


This matter is before the court on the motion to continue by defendant Kyle R. Steenblock (Steenblock) (Filing No. 32). Steenblock seeks a continuance of the trial of this matter for at least sixty days. Steenblock's counsel represents that counsel for the government has no objection to the motion. Steenblock has submitted an affidavit in accordance with paragraph 9 of the progression order whereby Steenblock consents to the motion and acknowledges he understands the additional time may be excludable time for the purposes of the Speedy Trial Act (Filing No. 33). Upon consideration, the motion will be granted. Trial of this matter will be continued as to both defendants.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Steenblock's motion to continue trial (Filing No. 32) is granted.

2. Trial of this matter is re-scheduled for January 29, 2007, before Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon and a jury. 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 time arising as a result of the granting of the motion, i.e., the time between November 17, 2006 and January 29, 2007, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act for the reason that defendant's counsel requires additional time to adequately prepare the case. The failure to grant additional time might result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) (B).


Summaries of

U.S. v. Dodge

United States District Court, D. Nebraska
Nov 17, 2006
8:06CR310 (D. Neb. Nov. 17, 2006)
Case details for

U.S. v. Dodge

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JAKE R. DODGE and KYLE R…

Court:United States District Court, D. Nebraska

Date published: Nov 17, 2006

Citations

8:06CR310 (D. Neb. Nov. 17, 2006)

Citing Cases

Wallace v. R. R

ALLEN, J., after stating the case: There is authority for the position presented by the defendant in the…