Opinion
8:22CR87
05-30-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOEY D. HUSTON, Defendant.
ORDER
MICHAEL D. NELSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Defendant made an oral motion to continue the trial because the parties have executed a pretrial diversion agreement and request the matter be reset. The motion to continue is unopposed. The undersigned magistrate judge held a telephone conference with the attorneys. Based on the comments of counsel on the telephone conference, the court finds the oral motion should be granted. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
1) Defendant's Unopposed Oral Motion to Continue the Jury Trial is granted.
2) The trial of this case is continued pending further order of the court.
3) A telephonic conference with counsel will be held before the undersigned magistrate judge at 10:30 a.m. on December 6, 2024. The parties will use Restricted Order [41] for conference connection instructions.
4) In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the court finds that the ends of justice will be served by granting this continuance and outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Any additional time arising as a result of the granting of this motion, that is, the time between today's date and December 6, 2024, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act. Failure to grant a continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B)(iv). Failing to timely object to this order as provided under this 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.