Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Source documents Order on Excludable Delay — United States v. Jasmine Murphy (Dkt. 37)

Order on Excludable Delay — United States v. Jasmine Murphy (Dkt. 37)

Summary

An Order on Excludable Delay, Document 37, filed October 2, 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 a final status conference was scheduled for October 2, 2025 and that defense counsel is not available. It continues the case to October 21, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. for a final status conference, 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 October 2, 2025 up to and including October 21, 2025. It is signed /s/ M. Page Kelley.

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. 37).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/gov-uscourts-mad-278747-37-0-c47b2db83f/, SHA-256 8737956b5b2e474e0c94d1c0d1cf100bcc85bc8d83c5f2023948006a54a20a25.

Full text

           Case 1:24-cr-10379-RGS             Document 37          Filed 10/02/25        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 a final status conference scheduled for October 2, 2025. Defense counsel is not

available due to a religious holiday. (#35.) The case is continued to October 21, 2025, at 11:00 a.m.

for a final status conference, by zoom.

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

allow the parties 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 October 2, 2025, up to and including October 21,

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
parties are further advised that the United States Court of Appeals for this Circuit has indicated that failure to
                                                          1
         Case 1:24-cr-10379-RGS            Document 37         Filed 10/02/25      Page 2 of 2




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




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.278747.37.0.pdf
Size
121,393 bytes
SHA-256
8737956b5b2e474e0c94d1c0d1cf100bcc85bc8d83c5f2023948006a54a20a25
Our copy
gov.uscourts.mad.278747.37.0.pdf
Original
No public link identified.
Back to top