Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Boal: ORDER entered.… — USA v. Lorne Johnson et al. (Dkt. 55)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts · No. 1:26-cr-10031-RGS · Doc. 55 · 2026-05-22 · Docket on CourtListener

Summary

An order on excludable time 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, entered May 22, 2026 by United States Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Boal as Doc. 55. The order states that, based on the parties' joint status report at Docket No. 53, the court cancelled the interim status conference and scheduled a final status conference for July 23, 2026. It finds that a continuance is needed for defense counsel to review discovery, investigate the evidence and prepare any pretrial motions. It excludes the period from May 26, 2026, through and including July 23, 2026 from the Speedy Trial Act computation under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). A footnote advises that any party 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

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 
May 22, 2026 
 
Boal, M.J. 
 
This Court has previously excluded the time until May 26, 2026, which was the date of 
the interim status conference.  Docket No. 45.  Based on the parties’ joint status report, see 
Docket No. 53, this Court cancelled the interim status conference and scheduled a final status 
conference for July 23, 2026.  Accordingly, this Court finds as follows:  
 
1. 
A continuance of this proceeding from May 26, 2026, through and including July 
23, 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 May 26, 2026, 
through and including July 23, 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 55     Filed 05/22/26     Page 1 of 2

2 
 
 
 
 
Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that the period from May 26, 2026, through and 
including July 23, 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 55     Filed 05/22/26     Page 2 of 2

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.mad.295487.55.0.pdf

Size

143,731 bytes

SHA-256

8256ea2c7a2d686abce97ad78869e03cb824b727fb0d7b5868eab2b7b00b3220

Our copy

gov.uscourts.mad.295487.55.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)