Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Source documents Order on Excludable Time — United States v. Sniders Jean-Jacques et al. (Dkt. 53)

Order on Excludable Time — United States v. Sniders Jean-Jacques et al. (Dkt. 53)

Summary

Document 53, an Order on Excludable Time dated March 31, 2026 and signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Boal in United States of America v. Sniders Jean-Jacques, et al., Criminal No. 26-10030-RGS, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Based on the parties' joint status report at Docket No. 48, the court cancelled the initial status conference and scheduled an interim status conference for May 26, 2026. The order finds that a continuance from March 31, 2026, through and including May 26, 2026 is necessary for defense counsel and the defendants to review discovery and prepare pretrial motions, and excludes that period from the Speedy Trial Act computation.

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 — United States v. Sniders Jean-Jacques et al. (Dkt. 53).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/gov-uscourts-mad-295478-53-0-b1f1fa8bd0/, SHA-256 5d863e368a2a1b9d520d93812d285d30be5b3afc29ffa83d6f41a9f395e6457c.

Full text

        Case 1:26-cr-10030-RGS           Document 53        Filed 03/31/26      Page 1 of 2




                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                               DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

CRIMINAL NO. 26-10030-RGS

                                UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                                 v.

                                SNIDERS JEAN-JACQUES, et al.
                              ORDER ON EXCLUDABLE TIME

                                          March 31, 2026

Boal, M.J.

       This Court has previously excluded the time until March 31, 2026, which was the date of

the initial status conference. Docket Nos. 30, 33, 36, 41, 42. Based on the parties’ joint status

report, see Docket No. 48, this Court cancelled the initial status conference and scheduled an

interim status conference for May 26, 2026. Accordingly, this Court finds as follows:

       1.      A continuance of this proceeding from March 31, 2026, through and including

May 26, 2026, is necessary to ensure that counsel for the defendants and the defendants have

sufficient time to review discovery, investigate the evidence, and to evaluate the need for, and to

prepare, any pretrial motions. I find, given the specific circumstances in this case, that this

continuance constitutes “the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into

account the exercise of due diligence.” 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

       2.      The ends of justice served by granting the continuance from March 31, 2026,

through and including May 26, 2026, outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants

for a trial within seventy days of the defendants’ initial appearance pursuant to the Speedy Trial

Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
                                                  1
       Case 1:26-cr-10030-RGS            Document 53        Filed 03/31/26      Page 2 of 2




       Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that the period from March 31, 2026, through

and including May 26, 2026, be excluded from the Speedy Trial Act computation of the time

within which trial in the case must begin, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and

3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). 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).


                                                  2

File and source

File
gov.uscourts.mad.295478.53.0.pdf
Size
143,304 bytes
SHA-256
5d863e368a2a1b9d520d93812d285d30be5b3afc29ffa83d6f41a9f395e6457c
Our copy
gov.uscourts.mad.295478.53.0.pdf
Original
No public link identified.
Back to top