U.S. v. WAND

No. 3:15-cr-00056-1.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. WALTON MICHAEL WAND, Defendant.

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Walton Michael Wand, Defendant, represented by Thomas J. Drake, Jr. & Susanna Maria Gattoni , Hall Estill, P.C..

Nourrdine Abidi, Defendant, represented by William Jordan Steed, III , Law Office of William J. Steed III.

Faransis Romany Faltas, Defendant, represented by Ronald Clayton Small , Federal Public Defender's Office.

Youssef Aziz Abdelmalak, Defendant, represented by Cynthia A. Sherwood , Sherwood Boutique Litigation, PLC.

USA, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie N. Toussaint , U.S. Attorney's Office & Ryan Raybould , U.S. Attorney's Office.


ORDER

WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, Jr., District Judge.

Pending before the Court is Defendant Walton Michael Wand's Motion to Continue Filing Deadlines and to Continue the Trial (Doc. No. 140) set for February 28, 2017. Defendant seeks more time to review discovery. The Defendant has also filed a Waiver of Speedy Trial Rights. (Doc. No. 141.) The Government opposes a continuance, noting that this is the sixth time Defendant has requested to continue the trial date in this action. (Doc. No. 142 at 1-2.) The Government argues that it has spent "a considerable amount of time and resources" to prepare for trial, and that the Defendant has not demonstrated good cause to continue the trial. (Id. at 2-3.)

"The matter of a continuance is within the discretion of the trial judge." United States v. Crawford, 60 F.App'x 520, 526 (6th Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. King, 127 F.3d 483, 486-87 (6th Cir. 1997)). Here, the Defendant's counsel entered an appearance on his behalf on July 14, 2016. (Doc. No. 90.) The Government notes that Defendant "has been in possession of the bulk of discovery for well over a year" (Doc. No. 142 at 3), and Defendant states that the Government "has been forthcoming and courteous in providing discovery." (Doc. No. 140 at ¶ 3.) Thus, the Court finds that Defendant will not be prejudiced by denial of the motion to continue, as Defendant has had "the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence." See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The Court also finds that the interests of justice served by granting the continuance do not outweigh the interests of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial on the date previously scheduled. See id. § 3161(h)(7)(A),(B).

Accordingly, Defendant's Motion (Doc. No. 140) is DENIED and the trial date and filing deadlines remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases