USA v. Tonini

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FRANK L. TONINI,
Defendant.
4:24CR3056
ORDER
Defendant has moved to cancel the change of plea hearing and set a telephone
conference with the Court, (Filing No. 40), because Defendant needs additional time to consider
and decide whether to enter a guilty plea or go to trial. The motion to continue is unopposed.
Based on the showing provided in support of the motion, the court finds good cause has been
shown and the motion should be granted in part and denied in part. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1) 	Defendant’s motion to continue, (Filing No. 40), is granted in part and denied in
part.
2) 	The change of plea hearing scheduled on January 14, 2026, is canceled.
3) 	A telephonic conference with counsel will be held before the undersigned
magistrate judge at 9:15 a.m. on January 29, 2026 to discuss setting any change
of plea hearing, or the date of the jury trial and deadlines for disclosing experts as
required under Rule 16. Counsel for all parties shall use the conferencing
instructions provided by the court to participate in the call.
4) 	The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting the motion to continue
outweigh the interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial, and the
additional time arising as a result of the granting of the motion, the time between
today’s date and January 29, 2026 shall be deemed excludable time in any
computation of time under the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, because
although counsel have been duly diligent, additional time is needed to adequately
prepare this case for trial and failing to grant additional time might result in a
miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1), (h)(6) & (h)(7). Both the Defendant
and the government communicated to the Court that they consented to this finding.
Failing to timely object to this order as provided under this court’s local rules will
be deemed a waiver of any right to later claim the time should not have been
excluded under the Speedy Trial Act.
Dated this 13 th day of January, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Jacqueline M. DeLuca
United States Magistrate Judge
4:24-cr-03056-SMB-JMD Doc # 41 Filed: 01/13/26 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID #
<pageID>