Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. MACIEL, 1:13-cr-00401 AWI-BAM. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20140822818
Filed: Aug. 21, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 21, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendants, by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on August 25, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. 2. By this stipulation, the parties now move to continue the status conference until October 14, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. and to e
More

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

BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendants, by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on August 25, 2014 at 1:00 p.m.

2. By this stipulation, the parties now move to continue the status conference until October 14, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. and to exclude time between August 25, 2014 and October 14, 2014, under 18 U.S.C.§ 3161(h)(7)(A), B(iv).

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

a. The government has represented that the initial discovery has been provided and is continuing to prepare additional discovery in this matter. Discovery continues to be ongoing at this time but is not complete.

b. There are scheduling conflicts with Mr. Sherman on August 25, 2014 — the date presently set. Mr. Sherman has a Federal Court hearing scheduled that date in Los Angeles.

c. Counsel for defendants need additional time for investigation and preparation. Counsel for defendants are continuing to investigate the matter. Counsel for defendants believe that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny them the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation and resolution, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

d. The government does not object to the continuance and agrees a continuance is necessary due to the ongoing voluminous discovery review.

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 defendants 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 August 25, 2014 to October 14, 2014, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 3161(h)(7)(A), B(iv) 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 defendants interest 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 that the 3rd Status Conference for all three defendants is continued from August 25, 2014 to Tuesday, October 14, 2014 at 1:30 PM before Judge McAuliffe. Time is excluded excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 3161(h)(7)(A), B(iv).

IT IS SO 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