Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. STASYUK, 2:13-CR-00005 TLN. (2013)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20131021628 Visitors: 140
Filed: Oct. 18, 2013
Latest Update: Oct. 18, 2013
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge. STIPULATION Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and the defendant, by and through his counsel of record, hereby stipulate and request that the Court make the following findings and Order as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on October 24, 2013. 2. By this stipulation, the defendant now moves to continue the
More

STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER

TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.

STIPULATION

Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and the defendant, by and through his counsel of record, hereby stipulate and request that the Court make the following findings and Order as follows:

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on October 24, 2013.

2. By this stipulation, the defendant now moves to continue the status conference until November 21, 2013, and to exclude time between October 24, 2013, and November 21, 2013, under Local Code T4. Plaintiff does not oppose this request.

3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:

a. The government has represented that the discovery associated with this case includes approximately 381 pages of investigative reports and related documents in electronic form. All of this discovery has been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying.

b. Counsel for the defendant desires additional time to review new audio discovery that was recently requested and promptly produced by the government. Furthermore, counsel needs additional time to consult and review such with her client and complete the investigation. According to the defense investigator, only a few interviews remain but still require the coordination with the Russian interpreter. Counsel for defendant will need to discuss potential resolutions with her client and can estimate that by the next status conference, we will be prepared for a change of plea or setting a trial date.

c. Counsel for the defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny her the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

d. The government does not object to the continuance.

e. Based on the above-stated findings, the ends of justice served by continuing the case as requested outweigh the interest of the public and the defendant in a trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act.

f. For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq., within which trial must commence, the time period of October 24, 2013 to November 21, 2013, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 3161(h)(7)(A), B(iv) [Local Code T4] because it results from a continuance granted by the Court at defendant's request on the basis of the Court's finding that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

4. Nothing in this stipulation and order shall preclude a finding that other provisions of the Speedy Trial Act dictate that additional time periods are excludable from the period within which a trial must commence.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer