U.S.
v.
Parks

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
United States District Court, D. New HampshireDec 1, 2011
Criminal No. 11-cr-89-01-JD. (D.N.H. Dec. 1, 2011)

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • United States v. Roberson

    …Roberson concedes that those challenges are foreclosed by binding circuit precedent, see, e.g., United States…

  • United States v. Dimora

    …Courts may also consider “at exactly what point during the authorized period the interception was made,”…

lock 29 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

Summaries written by judges

Summaries

  • finding that in-person requirements are “doubtless more inconvenient,” but ultimately the inconvenience is minor compared with the disadvantages present in the act upheld in Smith

    Summary of this case from Doe v. State

  • concluding that in-person reporting is inconvenient but not enough to constitute punishment

    Summary of this case from Shaw v. Patton

  • affirming consecutive sentence imposed on defendant who was on probation at time of conviction, even though both the conviction and probation violation arose from the same course of conduct

    Summary of this case from United States v. Santiago-Burgos

Criminal No. 11-cr-89-01-JD.

December 01, 2011.


ORDER


The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no. 14) filed by defendant is granted; Trial is continued to the two-week period beginning January 18, 2012, 9:30 a.m.

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10 days. The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv), for the reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.