United States District Court, W.D. New York
March 5, 2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
ARTHUR LONG, Defendant.
DECISION AND ORDER
FRANK P. GERACI, Jr., District Judge.
Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161(h)(1)(H) 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. 1983); 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 January 22, 2015, after objections to Magistrate Judge Feldman's Report and Recommendation and all responding and/or supplemental papers were submitted.
A review of Defendant's motion papers, the government's objections and the Defendant's responding papers is under way, and a decision will be made with reasonable dispatch. It now appears that full consideration of the motions and objections will take time beyond the 30-day advisement period, and "it is... open to... [the court] to find that the interest of justice is best served by granting a continuance under Section 3161(h)(7) for the excess period." United States v. Bufalino, 683 F.2d at 645.
Based upon the Court's current examination of the several issues presented in the motions, objections, and supplemental pro se filings by the Defendant, and further upon my finding that the interest of justice in a continuance outweighs the Defendant's and the public's interest in a more speedy trial, a continuance is granted pursuant to Section 3161(h)(7)(A) until March 20, 2015, for the purpose of rendering a decision.
This Order "puts defense counsel on notice that the speedy trial clock has been stopped, " and it ensures a timely determination, "[i]f for any reason counsel believes that... [an exclusion] is inappropriate, [of] an objection... [timely] raised and [upon] a record made at that time." United States v. Tunnessen, 763 F.2d 74, 78 (2d Cir. 1985); 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 Tunnessen ).
IT IS SO ORDERED.