Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Boal: ORDER entered.… — USA v. Lorne Johnson et al. (Dkt. 31)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts · No. 1:26-cr-10031-RGS · Doc. 31 · 2026-02-25 · Docket on CourtListener

Summary

An Order on Excludable Time in United States v. Ashley Spike, Criminal No. 26-10031-RGS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, dated February 24, 2026 by Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Boal and filed February 25, 2026 as Document 31 in Case 1:26-cr-10031-RGS. The order notes that the defendant elected to proceed under the automatic discovery rules and finds that the interests of justice in allowing time for discovery and consideration of pre-trial motions outweigh the interest in a trial within seventy days. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and Local Rule 112.2(a)(1), it directs the Clerk to enter excludable time from February 24, 2026, the date of the initial appearance, up to and including March 31, 2026, the date of the initial status conference. A footnote advises the parties that they may seek reconsideration by a district judge within fourteen (14) days.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 
 
CRIMINAL NO. 26-10031-RGS 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
v. 
 
ASHLEY SPIKE 
ORDER ON EXCLUDABLE TIME 
February 24, 2026 
 
Boal, M.J. 
 
The defendant has elected to proceed under the Automatic Discovery Rules in accordance 
with Local Rules 116.1 through 116.5.  The interests of justice in this case, i.e., to provide the 
parties additional time to develop their respective discovery plans, to produce discovery under 
the automatic discovery process, to evaluate the discovery and to seek additional discovery, and 
for the defendant to consider the need for pre-trial motions, outweigh the best interests of the 
public and defendant for a trial within seventy days of the date of the defendant’s initial 
appearance.   
 
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, pursuant to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 
3161(h)(7)(A) and Section 5(b)(7)(B) of the Plan for Prompt Disposition of Criminal Cases in 
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Statement of Time Limits 
Adopted by the Court and Procedures for Implementing Them, Effective December 2008) and 
Local Rule 112.2(a)(1), the Clerk of this Court enter excludable time for the period February 24, 
Case 1:26-cr-10031-RGS     Document 31     Filed 02/25/26     Page 1 of 2

2026, which was the date of the defendant’s initial appearance in this district, up to and including 
March 31, 2026, which is the date of the initial status conference.1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 /s/ Jennifer C. Boal                           
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JENNIFER C. BOAL  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
United States Magistrate Judge  
 
1 The parties are hereby advised that under the provisions of Rule 2(b) of the Rules for United 
States Magistrates in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, any party 
may move for reconsideration by a district judge of the determination(s) and order(s) set forth 
herein within fourteen (14) days after receipt of a copy of this order, unless a different time is 
prescribed by this court or the district judge.  The party seeking reconsideration shall file with 
the Clerk of this Court, and serve upon all parties, a written notice of the motion which shall 
specifically designate the order or part thereof to be reconsidered and the basis for the objection 
thereto. The district judge, upon timely motion, shall reconsider the magistrate judge's order and 
set aside any portion thereof found to be clearly erroneous in fact or contrary to law. The parties 
are further advised that the United States Court of Appeals for this Circuit has indicated that 
failure to comply with this rule shall preclude further appellate review. See Phinney v. 
Wentworth Douglas Hospital, 199 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1999); Sunview Condo. Ass’n v. Flexel Int’l 
Ltd., 116 F.3d 962 (1st Cir. 1997); Pagano v. Frank, 983 F.2d 343 (1st Cir. 1993). 
Case 1:26-cr-10031-RGS     Document 31     Filed 02/25/26     Page 2 of 2

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.mad.295487.31.0.pdf

Size

127,267 bytes

SHA-256

51dc146ed016700ae7d0053fb28dd9b07045b5919b88454921ca0aa34922e091

Our copy

gov.uscourts.mad.295487.31.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)