Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Sanora

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


August 12, 2010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
LUIS SANORA, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, Chief Judge

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant Luis Sanora's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 510). Specifically, Defendants asks for additional time in which to request additional discovery materials and for filing discovery motions. Defendant states that his attorney received eight CDs of discovery materials but has not had a chance to properly review those materials and determine whether additional discovery will be requested or whether Defendant will file pretrial motions. Based on the reasons set forth in the motion, the Court GRANTS Sanora's motion for extension of time (Doc. 510). Defendant Sanora will have up to and including August 18, 2010 in which to request additional discovery materials from the Government. Further, Defendant will have up to and including August 20, 2010 in which to file pretrial motions.

In extending the pretrial and discovery deadlines, the Court notes that the twenty-one days initially given to Defendant to complete discovery and file pretrial motions, as well as the additional time now given to Defendant, is excludable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). According to a recent Supreme Court decision, Bloate v. United States, 130 S.Ct. 1345 (2010), delays resulting from pre-trial motion preparation is not automatically excludable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1), but requires case-specific findings under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7). See Bloate, 130 S.Ct. at 1352. In light of the recent decision, the Court finds that the time granted to Defendant for preparation of pretrial motions and discovery is excludable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) as the ends of justice served by the granting of such a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and Defendant in a speedy trial. To force a defendant to trial without adequate time to prepare would constitute a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the Court notes that the time from the arraignment, July 21, 2010, until the date on which the time to file pre-trial motions ends, August 20, 2010, is excludable time for the purpose of speedy trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed this 12th day of August, 2010.

David R. Herndon Chief Judge United States District Court

20100812

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.