Magistrate Judge David H. Hennessy: ORDER entered.… — USA v. Ebrahimzadeh (Dkt. 34)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts · No. 1:25-cr-10455-RGS · Doc. 34 · 2026-01-21 · Docket on CourtListener

Summary

An Order on Excludable Time entered January 21, 2026 by Magistrate Judge David H. Hennessy in United States v. David Ebrahimzadeh, No. 1:25-cr-10455-RGS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The order excludes time under the Speedy Trial Act from January 23, 2026, the date of the Initial Status Conference, through March 19, 2026, the date of the Interim Status Conference, under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). Citing Local Rule 112.2(c), the court finds that the government needs the continuance to produce automatic discovery and the defendant needs it to review that discovery and consider discovery requests and pretrial motions. A footnote advises the parties that under Rule 2(b) any party may seek reconsideration by a district judge within fourteen (14) days. The order is Document 34 and runs two pages.

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 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
Criminal No. 25-10455-RGS 
DAVID EBRAHIMZADEH,  
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
                                         Defendant           
 
) 
                  
 
 
) 
             
 
 
 
 
 
) 
__________________________________________) 
 
 
ORDER ON EXCLUDABLE TIME 
 
January 21, 2026 
 
 
 
 
 
Hennessy, M.J. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I hereby ORDER the exclusion of time pursuant to the below-referenced provision of the 
Speedy Trial Act from January 23, 2026 (the date of the Initial Status Conference), through March 
19, 2026 (the date of the Interim Status Conference).  I exclude this time pursuant to the provisions 
of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) because I find that the ends of justice served by taking such action 
outweigh the best interest of the public and Defendant in a speedy trial.  Specifically, in accordance 
with Local Rule 112.2(c) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the District of 
Massachusetts (2025), I find that the United States will need this continuance to produce automatic 
discovery, and Defendant will need this continuance to begin review of automatic discovery and 
consider the need for discovery requests and pretrial motions.  I further find that to not grant such 
Case 1:25-cr-10455-RGS     Document 34     Filed 01/21/26     Page 1 of 2

2 
 
a continuance would deny both the United States and Defendant the reasonable time necessary for 
effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.1 
 
 / s / David H. Hennessy               
David H. Hennessy 
United States Magistrate Judge 
 
 
1   The parties are hereby advised that under the provisions of Rule 2(b) of the Rules for United 
States Magistrate Judges 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’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 Keating v. Secretary of Health 
& Human Servs., 848 F.2d 271 (1st Cir. 1988); United States v. Emiliano Valencia-Copete, 792 
F.2d 4 (1st Cir. 1986); Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F.2d 603 (1st Cir. 1980); 
United States v. Vega, 678 F.2d 376, 378-79 (1st Cir. 1982); Scott v. Schweiker, 702 F.2d 13, 14 
(1st Cir. 1983); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). 
Case 1:25-cr-10455-RGS     Document 34     Filed 01/21/26     Page 2 of 2

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.mad.293123.34.0.pdf

Size

117,064 bytes

SHA-256

e2572dc373c0d4fcee4fc819b86b5c5b49e06963c1a745da260967c1297c0ec8

Our copy

gov.uscourts.mad.293123.34.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)