U.S. v. AVALOS

No. 4:16CR3038.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiffs, v. VICTOR M. AVALOS, and CAROLINA B. LARA, Defendants.

United States District Court, D. Nebraska.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Carolina B. Lara, Defendant, represented by Gregory C. Damman , BLEVENS, DAMMAN LAW FIRM.

Victor M. Avalos, Defendant, represented by Joshua D. Barber , BARBER, BARBER LAW FIRM.

USA, Plaintiff, represented by Martin R. Klein , U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.


ORDER

CHERYL R. ZWART, Magistrate Judge.

Defendant Avalos has filed an objection to the findings and recommendation to deny his motion to suppress. The government needs additional time to respond to that objection. And all parties need a final ruling on the motion to suppress know how to prepare for trial. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

1) The government's response to Defendant Avalos' objection, (Filing No. 218), shall be filed on or before April 17, 2017. 2) As to both defendants, the trial of this case is set to commence before the Honorable Richard G. Kopf, Senior United States District Judge, in Courtroom 1, United States Courthouse, Lincoln, Nebraska, at 9:00 a.m. on June 19, 2017, or as soon thereafter as the case may be called, for a duration of five (5) trial days. Jury selection will be held at commencement of trial. 3) For the reasons stated above, the Court further finds the parties need additional time to prepare for trial; and that the purposes served by continuing the trial date in this case outweigh the interest of Defendant and the public in a speedy trial. Accordingly, as to both defendants, the additional time arising as a result of the granting of the motion, the time between today's date and June 19, 2017, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, because although counsel have been duly diligent, additional time is needed to adequately prepare this case for trial and failing to grant additional time might result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1), (h)(6) & (h)(7). Failing to object to this order as provided under the court's local rules will be deemed a waiver of any right to later claim the time should not have been excluded under the Speedy Trial Act.

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