Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Boal: ORDER entered.… — USA v. Lorne Johnson et al. (Dkt. 45)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts · No. 1:26-cr-10031-RGS · Doc. 45 · 2026-03-27 · Docket on CourtListener

Summary

An order on excludable time entered March 27, 2026 by Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Boal in United States v. Sniders Jean-Jacques, et al., No. 1:26-cr-10031-RGS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Doc. 45. The order notes that time was previously excluded until March 31, 2026, and that, based on the parties' joint status report at Docket No. 43, the court cancelled the initial status conference and set an interim status conference for May 26, 2026. It finds a continuance necessary for the defense to review discovery, investigate the evidence and prepare any pretrial motions, and that the ends of justice outweigh the interest in a speedy trial. The court orders the period from March 31, 2026, through and including May 26, 2026 excluded under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). A footnote sets out the fourteen-day window to seek reconsideration.

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

1 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 
 
CRIMINAL NO. 26-10031-RGS 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
v. 
 
SNIDERS JEAN-JACQUES, et al. 
ORDER ON EXCLUDABLE TIME 
March 27, 2026 
 
Boal, M.J. 
 
This Court has previously excluded the time until March 31, 2026, which was the date of 
the initial status conference.  Docket Nos. 11, 31, 36.  Based on the parties’ joint status report, 
see Docket No. 43, this Court cancelled the initial status conference and scheduled an interim 
status conference for May 26, 2026.  Accordingly, this Court finds as follows:  
 
1. 
A continuance of this proceeding from March 31, 2026, through and including 
May 26, 2026, is necessary to ensure that counsel for the defendants and the defendants have 
sufficient time to review discovery, investigate the evidence, and to evaluate the need for, and to 
prepare, any pretrial motions.  I find, given the specific circumstances in this case, that this 
continuance constitutes “the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into 
account the exercise of due diligence.”  18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).   
 
2. 
The ends of justice served by granting the continuance from March 31, 2026, 
through and including May 26, 2026, outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants 
for a trial within seventy days of the defendants’ initial appearance pursuant to the Speedy Trial 
Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).   
Case 1:26-cr-10031-RGS     Document 45     Filed 03/27/26     Page 1 of 2

2 
 
 
 
 
Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that the period from March 31, 2026, through 
and including May 26, 2026, be excluded from the Speedy Trial Act computation of the time 
within which trial in the case must begin, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and 
3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).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 Hosp., 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 45     Filed 03/27/26     Page 2 of 2

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.mad.295487.45.0.pdf

Size

143,561 bytes

SHA-256

5d8a5507d32f80e1549dec69c1e77e0c2d0bd6fd78cc7759fac18b8c9ec6d6e7

Our copy

gov.uscourts.mad.295487.45.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)