Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Source documents Order on Excludable Delay — United States v. Jasmine Murphy (Dkt. 44)

Order on Excludable Delay — United States v. Jasmine Murphy (Dkt. 44)

Summary

An Order on Excludable Delay, Document 44, filed December 17, 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 December 19, 2025 and that the parties filed a joint status report indicating that defense counsel's schedule has interfered with preparation of the case. It continues the case for a final status conference to February 6, 2026 at 11:30 a.m.. 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. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), it directs the Clerk to enter excludable time from December 19, 2025 up to and including February 6, 2026.

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. 44).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/gov-uscourts-mad-278747-44-0-1c0ff44fac/, SHA-256 e3e86680cfb4d89622819919cc2c509d793754ff6f81d24a0da67e7493dd38b9.

Full text

          Case 1:24-cr-10379-RGS              Document 44          Filed 12/17/25        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 December 19, 2025. The parties filed a

joint status report indicating that defense counsel’s schedule has interfered with the preparation of the

case and requesting additional time. (#43.) The case is continued for a final status conference to

February 6, 2026 at 11:30 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 the parties time to prepare the case, 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 December 19, 2025, up to and including February 6, 2026. 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 44         Filed 12/17/25       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.278747.44.0.pdf
Size
121,970 bytes
SHA-256
e3e86680cfb4d89622819919cc2c509d793754ff6f81d24a0da67e7493dd38b9
Our copy
gov.uscourts.mad.278747.44.0.pdf
Original
No public link identified.
Back to top