{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "266",
    "date": "05/03/21",
    "document_type": "Court Order",
    "has_handwriting": true,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 266 Filed 05/03/21 Page 3 of 3\n\nthis case, any adjournment runs the risk of precluding some attorneys from being able to participate and/or requiring them to seek adjustments to schedules in other matters. And, importantly, any victims and the public more broadly have a strong interest in trial proceeding without undue delay. It is the Court's obligation to ensure that the case proceed to that trial as expeditiously as possible, taking into account the interests of justice and all relevant circumstances. See 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(A); 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(7).\n\nHaving balanced all of the factors outlined above, the Court concludes that the interests of justice justify granting a short continuance. The Court deems an adjournment until fall 2021 to be reasonable. Such an adjournment would plainly give the defense team sufficient time to prepare for trial in light of the additional charges contained in the S2 indictment while also ensuring that the trial proceeds without undue delay. No additional delay is necessary or in the interests of justice.\n\nThe parties are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer and by May 10, 2021, they shall jointly propose a trial start date for the Court to request of the Clerk's Office (as is required by COVID protocols). The Court urges counsel to agree to the earliest possible date this fall and to seek adjustments to other schedules in order to facilitate an early fall trial start date. The parties shall also discuss and propose any adjustments necessary to the pre-trial schedule in place. Dkt. No. 250. The Government may move in the letter for any requested exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act.\n\nSO ORDERED.\n\nDated: May 3, 2021\nNew York, New York\n\nALISON J. NATHAN\nUnited States District Judge",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 266 Filed 05/03/21 Page 3 of 3",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "this case, any adjournment runs the risk of precluding some attorneys from being able to participate and/or requiring them to seek adjustments to schedules in other matters. And, importantly, any victims and the public more broadly have a strong interest in trial proceeding without undue delay. It is the Court's obligation to ensure that the case proceed to that trial as expeditiously as possible, taking into account the interests of justice and all relevant circumstances. See 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(A); 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(7).\n\nHaving balanced all of the factors outlined above, the Court concludes that the interests of justice justify granting a short continuance. The Court deems an adjournment until fall 2021 to be reasonable. Such an adjournment would plainly give the defense team sufficient time to prepare for trial in light of the additional charges contained in the S2 indictment while also ensuring that the trial proceeds without undue delay. No additional delay is necessary or in the interests of justice.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The parties are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer and by May 10, 2021, they shall jointly propose a trial start date for the Court to request of the Clerk's Office (as is required by COVID protocols). The Court urges counsel to agree to the earliest possible date this fall and to seek adjustments to other schedules in order to facilitate an early fall trial start date. The parties shall also discuss and propose any adjustments necessary to the pre-trial schedule in place. Dkt. No. 250. The Government may move in the letter for any requested exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SO ORDERED.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Dated: May 3, 2021\nNew York, New York",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "Alison J. Nathan",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ALISON J. NATHAN\nUnited States District Judge",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004083",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Clerk's Office",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "May 3, 2021",
      "May 10, 2021",
      "fall 2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 266",
      "Dkt. No. 250",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004083"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document is a court order signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan. It appears to be a formal legal document with no significant damage or redactions."
}