Magistrate Judge M. Page Kelley: ORDER entered.… — USA v. Ebrahimzadeh (Dkt. 43)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts · No. 1:25-cr-10455-RGS · Doc. 43 · 2026-03-13 · Docket on CourtListener

Summary

An order on excludable time entered March 13, 2026 by United States Magistrate Judge Page Kelley as Doc. 43 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 March 19, 2026, the date of the Interim Status Conference, through April 28, 2026, the date of the Further Interim Conference, under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). Citing Local Rule 112.2(c), the judge finds the defendant needs the continuance to review automatic discovery and consider discovery requests and pretrial motions. A footnote advises that any party may seek reconsideration by a district judge within fourteen (14) days. The order is 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 
 
March 13, 2026 
 
 
Kelley, M.J. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I hereby ORDER the exclusion of time pursuant to the below-referenced provision of the 
Speedy Trial Act from March 19, 2026 (the date of the Interim Status Conference), through April 
28, 2026 (the date of the Further Interim 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 Defendant will need this continuance to review 
automatic discovery and consider the need for discovery requests and pretrial motions.  I further 
find that to not grant such a continuance would deny both the United States and Defendant the 
Case 1:25-cr-10455-RGS     Document 43     Filed 03/13/26     Page 1 of 2

2 
 
reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due 
diligence.1 
 
 / s /Page Kelley               
Page Kelley 
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 43     Filed 03/13/26     Page 2 of 2

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.mad.293123.43.0.pdf

Size

116,122 bytes

SHA-256

ef7b3508810fdcb728ac650f8b9ee9a0f08c9373bb94a292602a38244a02c24d

Our copy

gov.uscourts.mad.293123.43.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)