Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Source documents Order on Excludable Delay — United States v. Jasmine Murphy (Dkt. 19)

Order on Excludable Delay — United States v. Jasmine Murphy (Dkt. 19)

Summary

An Order on Excludable Delay, Document 19, filed March 7, 2025 in United States of America v. Jasmine Murphy, No. 24-CR-10379-RGS, in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts. The order states that the parties filed a status report asking that the case be continued, and continues the case for a final status conference to May 8, 2025 at 10:30 a.m. by zoom. With the assent of the parties, the Court finds that the interests of justice outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant for a trial within seventy days of the date of indictment. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), it directs the Clerk to enter excludable time from March 7, 2025 up to and including May 8, 2025. It is signed /s/ M. Page Kelley, United States Magistrate Judge.

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

Cite this document

“Order on Excludable Delay — United States v. Jasmine Murphy (Dkt. 19).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/gov-uscourts-mad-278747-19-0-5282d0e0f1/, SHA-256 7b93dbdfd16a751ea7d5c330101c8f946ddc2cc31683ed926221f4af0cd849d2.

Full text

          Case 1:24-cr-10379-RGS             Document 19          Filed 03/07/25       Page 1 of 2




                                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                  DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                                   NO. 24-CR-10379-RGS
        v.

JASMINE MURPHY,
Defendant

                                  ORDER ON EXCLUDABLE DELAY


KELLEY, U.S.M.J.


        Defendant had an interim status conference scheduled for March 7, 2025. The parties filed a

status report asking that the case be continued for a further final status conference so defendant may

continue preparing the case. (#18.) This case is continued for a final status conference to May 8, 2025

at 10:30 a.m. by zoom.

        With the assent of the parties, the Court finds that the interests of justice in this case, i.e., to

allow defendant time to prepare the case for trial or other disposition, outweigh the best interests of

the public and defendant for a trial within seventy days of the date of indictment. Accordingly, it is

hereby ORDERED that, pursuant to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the Clerk of this

Court enter excludable time for the period from March 7, 2025, up to and including May 8, 2025. 1


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
                                                          1
          Case 1:24-cr-10379-RGS              Document 19          Filed 03/07/25        Page 2 of 2




                                                            /s/ M. Page Kelley
                                                            M. PAGE KELLEY
                                                            United States Magistrate Judge




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, 116 F.3d 962 (1st Cir. 1997); Pagano v.
Frank, 983 F.2d 343 (1st Cir. 1993).

                                                        2

File and source

File
gov.uscourts.mad.278747.19.0.pdf
Size
149,188 bytes
SHA-256
7b93dbdfd16a751ea7d5c330101c8f946ddc2cc31683ed926221f4af0cd849d2
Our copy
gov.uscourts.mad.278747.19.0.pdf
Original
No public link identified.
Back to top