From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Padin

United States District Court, W.D. New York
Jan 10, 2005
No. 03-CR-6044T (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2005)

Opinion

No. 03-CR-6044T.

January 10, 2005


ORDER


Section 3161(h)(1)(J) of Title 18, United States Code, permits the exclusion of 30 days once a motion is taken "under advisement" by the Court. A motion is taken under advisement "once the court has everything it expects from the parties prior to making its decision." United States v. Piteo, 726 F.2d 50, 52 (2d Cir. 1984); United States v. Bufalino, 683 F.2d 639, 642-44 (2d Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1104 (1983). In this case, that occurred on December 9, 2004, the deadline for the submissions of post-hearing memoranda.

A review of defendants' motion papers and the papers submitted on the government's behalf is almost complete, and a decision on such motions is forthcoming. It now appears, however, that full consideration of the motions made on behalf of the defendants will take time beyond the thirty day advisement period and that "it is . . . open to . . . [the court] to find that the interest of justice is best served by granting a continuance under § 3161(h)(8) for the excess period." United States v. Bufalino, 683 F.2d at 645.

Based upon the Court's current examination of the several and myriad issues presented by the motions, and further upon my findings that the interest of justice in a continuance overrides the defendants' and the public's interest in a speedy trial, a short continuance is hereby granted pursuant to § 3161(h)(8)(A) until January 14, 2005, for the purpose of rendering a decision.

This order "puts defense counsel on notice that the speedy trial clock has been stopped." United States v. Tunnesen, 763 F.2d 74, 78 (2d Cir. 1985). If counsel believes, for any reason, "that this [exclusion] is inappropriate, an objection may be raised and a record made at that time." Id.; see also United States v. Kiszewski, 877 F.2d 210, 215 (2d Cir. 1989) (prosecutors are responsible along with the court in paying attention to Tunnesen).

CONCLUSION

The foregoing constitutes a decision and order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), and the Speedy Trial Act.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Padin

United States District Court, W.D. New York
Jan 10, 2005
No. 03-CR-6044T (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2005)
Case details for

U.S. v. Padin

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. FLORENCIO PADIN (aka "June" aka…

Court:United States District Court, W.D. New York

Date published: Jan 10, 2005

Citations

No. 03-CR-6044T (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2005)