Motion for Continuance of Filing of Pretrial Motions — No. 4:22-cr-00298 (Dkt. 24, E.D. Mo.)

Summary

Motion in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, United States v. Anthony Weaver, Sr., case 4:22-cr-00298, Document 24, filed September 19, 2022. Through counsel Timothy J. Smith of Rudman & Smith, LLC, the defendant asks that the deadline for pretrial motions be continued for forty-five (45) days to allow review of discovery. The motion cites Henderson v. United States, 476 U.S. 321 (1986), on the exclusion under §3161(h)(1)(F) of time between the filing of a motion and its hearing.

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

Full text

Case: 4:22-cr-00298-SRC-SPM Doc. #: 24 Filed: 09/19/22 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 61


                               UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                               EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
                                     EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                               )
                                                        )
                 Plaintiff,                             )
                                                        )   Cause No.: 4:22CR298 SRC/SPM
v.                                                      )
                                                        )
                                                        )
ANTHONY “TONY” WEAVER, SR.,                             )
                                                        )
                 Defendant.                             )

            MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF FILING OF PRETRIAL MOTIONS

           COMES NOW Defendant ANTHONY “TONY” WEAVER, SR., by and through

 counsel, Attorney Timothy J. Smith, of Rudman & Smith, LLC., and respectfully requests that

 filing of Pretrial Motions be continued for said cause for forty-five (45) days. Counsel states for

 reason as follows:

     1. Additional time is needed to review discovery materials received on behalf of the Defendant;

     2. Certain pretrial delays are automatically excluded from the Speedy Trial Act’s time

     limits, such as delays caused by pretrial motions. In Henderson v. United States, 476
     U.S. 321 330 (1986), the Supreme Court held that §3161(h)(1)(F) excludes “all time between

     the filing of a motion and the conclusion of the hearing on that motion, whether or not a delay

     in holding that hearing is reasonably necessary.

                                                               Respectfully submitted:

                                                               RUDMAN & SMITH, LLC

                                                               ___/s/ Timothy J. Smith_____
                                                               Timothy J. Smith, #48655(MO)
                                                               2611 South Big Bend Blvd.
                                                               St. Louis, MO 63143
                                                               T: (314) 645-7246
                                                               F: (314) 645-4156
                                                               E: tjsmith@rudmansmithlaw.com
Case: 4:22-cr-00298-SRC-SPM Doc. #: 24 Filed: 09/19/22 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 62



                                CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify on this 19th day of September 2022; the foregoing was filed electronically with
the Clerk of Court to be served by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system.



                                                                    ___/s/ Timothy J. Smith____
                                                                    Timothy J. Smith, #48655(MO)


File and source

File

24.pdf

Size

117,797 bytes

SHA-256

7057ef854a184109537dc498f2d56e47169b201b8639eeb07e58b9cfa7ce1c66

Our copy

24.pdf

Original

No public link identified.