legal-news

1:25-cr-10437-1 USA v. Usiripalli

25-cr-10437
Active Active litigation Sign in to follow this case
Share mail
Advertisement
description

Case Summary

The United States is prosecuting a defendant identified as Usiripalli in a federal criminal matter docketed as 25-cr-10437. The most recent activity is an order on excludable delay, which tolls the Speedy Trial Act clock while certain pretrial proceedings are pending. Excludable delay orders are routine in federal criminal cases but signal that the case remains in early pretrial stages. The nature of the underlying charges is not reflected in the available docket information.

Latest development

1:25-cr-10437-1 USA v. Usiripalli

Order · April 20, 2026

The court issued an order.

description View filing

Key Issues

  • Speedy Trial Act compliance and excludable delay
  • Nature and scope of criminal charges
  • Pretrial procedural posture
smart_toy Juryvine case summary generated from primary court records. How we verify our work.
chronic

The Story So Far

Updated 1 hour, 54 minutes ago

A federal criminal case against a defendant identified as Usiripalli is active in what appears to be the District of Massachusetts, docket 1:25-cr-10437. The case was filed in 2025 and remains in early stages. No judge has been assigned as of the most recent docket entry.

The only substantive docket event on record is an order dated April 20, 2026, addressing excludable delay under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161. That order tolls the speedy trial clock — meaning the government bought more time before it must bring the case to trial without the delay counting against the statutory deadline.

Courts grant these orders for reasons ranging from ongoing plea negotiations to defense counsel needing more time to review discovery.

The underlying charges are not yet reflected in the public docket summary. What is known is that the case carries a criminal docket number, the defendant is named as Usiripalli, and the government is the United States. The excludable delay order suggests the parties are not yet ready to move toward trial and that both sides, or at least one, asked the court to pause the clock.

The absence of a named judge is notable. Cases this early in the docket cycle sometimes reflect a recent indictment or information that has not yet been fully processed into the public record. An arraignment, initial appearance, or scheduling conference would typically follow and produce a judge assignment.

Watch for a charging document — indictment or information — to surface and name the specific counts. That filing will define what this case is actually about.

smart_toy Juryvine case narrative generated from the full docket timeline. How we verify our work.

update What Changed This Week

1 event
gavel
Order 2 hours ago
The court issued an order.
receipt_long Source (filing) expand_more

Order On Excludable Delay ( 21

Open original open_in_new

Juryvine summaries are generated from court records. Expand "Source" on any row to see the underlying filing.

Advertisement

Case Timeline

3 events
info
Other April 20, 2026

1:25-cr-00037-1 USA v. Enright

Extension of Time to File Document ( 23

gavel
Order April 20, 2026

1:25-cr-10437-1 USA v. Usiripalli

The court issued an order.

info
Other April 20, 2026

1:25-cr-00478-1 USA v. Gruenke

Extension of Time ( 24

Advertisement
newspaper

Press Coverage

3 articles
settings_backup_restore Data provenance expand_more

Sources tracked

3 outlets · 3 articles

Timeline events

3 records on file

Last updated

1 hour, 5 minutes ago

Juryvine aggregates docket entries from PACER/CourtListener, press coverage, and GDELT signals. Ingestion timestamps do not appear in the What Changed feed — that reflects real court activity only.