Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Source documents Order on Excludable Delay — United States v. Jasmine Murphy (Dkt. 39)

Order on Excludable Delay — United States v. Jasmine Murphy (Dkt. 39)

Summary

An Order on Excludable Delay, Document 39, filed October 21, 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 21, 2025 and that the parties are negotiating resolution of the case and asked for one additional date. It continues the case to November 21, 2025, for a further final status conference, by zoom, at 10:30 a.m. With the assent of the parties, the Court finds that the interests of justice outweigh the best interests of the public 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 21, 2025 up to and including November 21, 2025.

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. 39).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/gov-uscourts-mad-278747-39-0-3cb6386e6d/, SHA-256 e44750d7a87f6bf7d289d662db7eccce60dd2bbca4326cb8d4f921c383227a0b.

Full text

          Case 1:24-cr-10379-RGS              Document 39          Filed 10/21/25        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.


        The Defendant had a final status conference scheduled for October 21, 2025. The parties are

negotiating resolution of the case and asked for one additional date. The case is continued to

November 21, 2025, for a further final status conference, by zoom, at 10:30 a.m.

        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 the Defendants 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 21, 2025, up to and including November

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 39         Filed 10/21/25      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.278747.39.0.pdf
Size
121,105 bytes
SHA-256
e44750d7a87f6bf7d289d662db7eccce60dd2bbca4326cb8d4f921c383227a0b
Our copy
gov.uscourts.mad.278747.39.0.pdf
Original
No public link identified.
Back to top