STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ORDER THEREON

ANTHONY W. ISHII, Senior District Judge.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective counsel, KIRK E. SHERRIFF, Assistant United States Attorney, counsel for plaintiff; ERIC V. KERSTEN, Assistant Federal Defender, counsel for defendant Darling Arlette Montalvo; and HARRY M. DRANDELL, counsel for defendant Evelyn Brigget Sanchez, that the date for trial in this matter may be continued to September 24, 2013, or the soonest date thereafter that is convenient to the court. The date currently set for trial is August 13, 2013. The requested new date is September 24, 2013.

This started as a five-defendant case. One defendant has entered a plea agreement and been sentenced. Two other defendants have entered plea agreements and are awaiting sentencing. Only defendants Montalvo and Sanchez are scheduled for trial. Of the two defendants awaiting sentencing one has agreed to cooperate with the government and will not be sentenced before the case against defendants Montalvo and Sanchez is resolved. The other co-defendant is scheduled for sentencing on September 9, 2013. In light of developments raised by the recent guilty pleas by the co-defendants in this case, and despite the exercise of diligence in preparing this case, defendants Montalvo and Sanchez (1) require additional time to prepare for trial, including to determine which witnesses will be needed for trial, and (2) to allow additional time for negotiations which may result in a negotiated settlement of this matter. The parties also respectfully request that the Court issue a new pretrial order for the continued trial date of September 24, 2013. Trial Confirmation shall be held on September 9, 2013 at 10:00 a.m.

The parties agree that the delay resulting from the requested continuance shall be excluded as necessary for effective defense preparation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv). The parties also agree that the ends of justice served by the granting of the requested continuance outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED. Based on the grounds set forth in the stipulation, the Court finds that the ends of justice served by the granting of the requested continuance outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. The intervening period of delay is excluded in the interests of justice pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv).

IT IS SO ORDERED.