USA v. Garcia-Urquizo et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SHAWN NORRIS,
Defendant.
4:25CR3023
ORDER
Defendant has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline, (Filing No. 212), because
Defendant needs additional time to decide if any pretrial motions are necessary and, further, to
consider and decide whether to enter a guilty plea or go to trial. The motion to continue is
unopposed. Based on the showing set forth in the motion, the court finds good cause has been
shown and the motion should be granted. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1) 	Defendant’s motion to continue, (Filing No. 212), is granted.
2) 	Pretrial motions and briefs shall be filed on or before December 18, 2025.
3) 	The conference call previously scheduled to be held on November 21, 2025, is
continued. 	A 	telephonic 	conference 	with 	counsel 	will 	be 	held 	before 	the
undersigned magistrate judge at 9:45 a.m. on December 19, 2025 to discuss
setting any pretrial motion hearing needed, a change of plea hearing, or the date
of the jury trial and deadlines for disclosing experts as required under Rule 16.
Counsel for all parties shall use the conferencing instructions provided by the court
to participate in the call.
4) 	The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting the motion to continue
outweigh the interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial, and the
additional time arising as a result of the granting of the motion, the time between
today’s date and December 19, 2025 shall be deemed excludable time in any
computation of time under the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, because
although counsel have been duly diligent, additional time is needed to adequately
prepare this case for trial and failing to grant additional time might result in a
miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1) & (h)(7). Failing to timely object to
this order as provided under this court’s local rules will be deemed a waiver of any
right to later claim the time should not have been excluded under the Speedy Trial
Act.
Dated this 18 th day of November, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Jacqueline M. DeLuca
United States Magistrate Judge
4:25-cr-03023-SMB-JMD Doc # 214 Filed: 11/18/25 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID #
<pageID>