Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Source documents Order on Excludable Delay — United States v. Jasmine Murphy (Dkt. 41)

Order on Excludable Delay — United States v. Jasmine Murphy (Dkt. 41)

Summary

An Order on Excludable Delay, Document 41, filed November 20, 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 November 21, 2025 and that the parties filed a status report asking that the case be continued so that they may continue discussing resolution of the case. It states that a further final status conference is scheduled for December 19, 2025, at 10:30 a.m., by zoom. With the assent of the parties, and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), it directs the Clerk to enter excludable time from November 21, 2025 up to and including December 19, 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. 41).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/gov-uscourts-mad-278747-41-0-b64c506e58/, SHA-256 9364d903eb6afdd9d8b957e3df707c49091b109dea2f75d65b93aaf0f1f1d68d.

Full text

          Case 1:24-cr-10379-RGS              Document 41          Filed 11/20/25        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 November 21, 2025. The parties filed

a status report asking hat the case be continued for a further conference so that they may continue

discussing resolution of the case. (#40.) A further final status conference is scheduled for December

19, 2025, at 10:30 a.m., by zoom.

        With the assent of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that, pursuant to the provisions of 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), interests of justice, the case will be continued and time will be excluded

under the Speedy Trial Act so that the defendant may continue preparing for the disposition of the

case. The Clerk of this Court shall enter excludable time for the period from November 21, 2025,

up to and including December 19, 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 41         Filed 11/20/25      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.278747.41.0.pdf
Size
120,732 bytes
SHA-256
9364d903eb6afdd9d8b957e3df707c49091b109dea2f75d65b93aaf0f1f1d68d
Our copy
gov.uscourts.mad.278747.41.0.pdf
Original
No public link identified.
Back to top