STEPHEN FRIOT, District Judge
Pursuant to the request of the Defendant, the Court finds as follows:
1. Defendant, Britt Edward Kinzalow has moved for a trial continuance from the August 8, 2005 docket to the October 11, 2005 docket. This trial continuance request is based on the submissions in the said motion that the unavailability of defense counsel and additional trial preparation time require such delay in the interests of providing the defense adequate time to prepare for trial.
2. Having reviewed the contentions advanced by the parties and the facts presented to the Court, the Court finds that the case against the Defendant requires a continuance within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv) to allow Defendant reasonable preparation for the trial of the case.
3. The Court further finds that the Defendant's stated need for additional preparation time under the circumstances of this case clearly outweighs the best interests of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A).
4. Accordingly, the time period from the granting of the continuance until a period of time no later than the court's October, 2005 docket, shall be deemed excludable from the computations of the seventy-day Indictment to trial interval. 18 U.S.C. § 3161.
IT IS SO ORDERED.