Opinion
7:22-cr-40-WLS-TQL
05-24-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JORGE LUIS JIMENEZ RAMIREZ Defendant.
ORDER
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Before the Court is an Unopposed Motion for Continuance (Doc. 26) (“Motion”) filed May 22, 2024, on behalf of Defendant. Therein, Defendant states that additional time is necessary to review discovery and to discuss any possible plea negotiations or defenses. Defense Counsel represents that she has consulted the Government's Counsel who does not oppose the instant Motion. The Defendant further states that the ends of justice by granting the continuance outweigh the Defendant's and the public's interest in a speedy trial.
Based on the stated reasons, the Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting such a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A)-(B).Therefore, the Unopposed Motion for Continuance (Doc. 26) is GRANTED. The Court hereby ORDERS that the trial in the above-referenced matter be CONTINUED to the Valdosta Division November 2024 trial term, and its conclusion, or as may otherwise be ordered by the Court.
Defense Counsel inadvertently cites § 3161(h)(8) which excludes: “Any period of delay, not to exceed one year, ordered by a district court upon an application of a party and a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that an official request, as defined in section 3292 of this title, has been made for evidence of any such offense and that it reasonably appears, or reasonably appeared at the time the request was made, that such evidence is, or was, in such foreign country.”
Furthermore, it is ORDERED that the time lost under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, be EXCLUDED pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7) because the Court has continued the trial in this case and finds that the failure to grant a continuance would likely result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i).
SO ORDERED.