United States v. Faircloth

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JARED FAIRCLOTH

Court: United States District Court, D. New Jersey

Date published: Nov 16, 2021

Mag. 21-6044 (DEA) (D.N.J. Nov. 16, 2021)

Opinion

Mag. 21-6044 (DEA)

11-16-2021

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JARED FAIRCLOTH

James Friedman, Esq. Counsel for Defendant Ashley M. Super, Assistant United States Attorney

HONORABLE DOUGLAS E. ARPERT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

James Friedman, Esq. Counsel for Defendant

Ashley M. Super, Assistant United States Attorney

CONTINUANCE ORDER

HONORABLE DOUGLAS E. ARPERT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter having come before the Court on the joint application of Rachael A. Honig, Acting United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey (by Ashley M. Super, Assistant United States Attorney), and defendant Jared Faircloth (by James Friedman, Esq., counsel for the defendant), for an order granting a continuance of the proceedings in the above-captioned matter from the date of this order through February 14, 2022, and the defendant being aware that he has the right to have the matter submitted to a grand jury within 30 days of the date of his arrest pursuant to Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 3161(b), and the defendant through his attorney having consented to the continuance, and no prior continuances having been granted by the Court; and for good and sufficient cause shown, IT IS THE FINDING OF THIS COURT that this action should be continued for the following reasons:

1. Plea negotiations may soon commence, and both the United States and the defendant seek time to achieve a successful

1

resolution of these negotiations, which would render trial of this matter unnecessary;

2. Defendant has consented to the aforementioned continuance;

3. The grant of a continuance will likely conserve judicial resources; and

4, Pursuant to Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 3161(h)(7), the ends of justice served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

WHEREFORE, it is on this 15^th day of November, 2021, ORDERED that the proceedings scheduled in the above-captioned matter are continued from the date of this Order through and including February 14, 2022;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the period from the date of this Order through and including February 14, 2022, shall be excludable in computing time under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, 2