Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Source documents Order on Excludable Time (Jim Kelly Michel) — United States v. Jim Kelly Michel (Dkt. 33)

Order on Excludable Time (Jim Kelly Michel) — United States v. Jim Kelly Michel (Dkt. 33)

Summary

An Order on Excludable Time in United States of America v. Jim Kelly Michel, Criminal No. 26-cr-10030, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, dated February 24, 2026 and filed February 25, 2026 as Document 33. It states that the defendant has elected to proceed under the Automatic Discovery Rules and that the interests of justice outweigh the best interests of the public and defendant for a trial within seventy days of the defendant's initial appearance. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the order directs the Clerk to enter excludable time from February 24, 2026, the date of the initial appearance, through March 31, 2026, the date of the initial status conference. It bears the signature of Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Boal.

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 Time (Jim Kelly Michel) — United States v. Jim Kelly Michel (Dkt. 33).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/gov-uscourts-mad-295477-33-0-939cc0fb19/, SHA-256 29317e8aebcf69f9f1465c0e31af7660eceb0a9d2028f8879f7415641d5d9674.

Full text

       Case 1:26-cr-10030-RGS           Document 33        Filed 02/25/26      Page 1 of 2




                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                              DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Criminal No. 26-cr-10030

                                UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                                 v.

                                      JIM KELLY MICHEL

                              ORDER ON EXCLUDABLE TIME

                                        February 24, 2026

Boal, M.J.

       The defendant has elected to proceed under the Automatic Discovery Rules in accordance

with Local Rules 116.1 through 116.5. The interests of justice in this case, i.e., to provide the

parties additional time to develop their respective discovery plans, to produce discovery under

the automatic discovery process, to evaluate the discovery and to seek additional discovery, and

for the defendant to consider the need for pre-trial motions, outweigh the best interests of the

public and defendant for a trial within seventy days of the defendant’s initial appearance.

       Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, pursuant to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(7)(A) and Section 5(b)(7)(B) of the Plan for Prompt Disposition of Criminal Cases in

the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Statement of Time Limits

Adopted by the Court and Procedures for Implementing Them, Effective December 2008) and

Local Rule 112.2(a)(1), the Clerk of this Court enter excludable time for the period from
       Case 1:26-cr-10030-RGS           Document 33        Filed 02/25/26      Page 2 of 2




February 24, 2026, which was the date of the defendant’s initial appearance, up to and including

March 31, 2026, which is the date of the initial status conference.1


                                               /s/ Jennifer C. Boal
                                              JENNIFER C. BOAL
                                              United States Magistrate Judge




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 comply with this rule shall preclude further appellate review. See Phinney v.
Wentworth Douglas Hosp., 199 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1999); Sunview Condo. Ass’n v. Flexel Int’l,
Ltd., 116 F.3d 962 (1st Cir. 1997); Pagano v. Frank, 983 F.2d 343 (1st Cir. 1993).

File and source

File
gov.uscourts.mad.295477.33.0.pdf
Size
118,651 bytes
SHA-256
29317e8aebcf69f9f1465c0e31af7660eceb0a9d2028f8879f7415641d5d9674
Our copy
gov.uscourts.mad.295477.33.0.pdf
Original
No public link identified.
Back to top