Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. BAINS, 2:13-CR-0006 MCE. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20140625b48 Visitors: 12
Filed: Jun. 20, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 20, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; ORDER MORRISON V. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge. STIPULATION 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on June 20, 2014. 2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until July 31, 2014, and to exclude time between June 20, 2014, and July 31, 2014, under Local Code T4. 3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following: a) The government has
More

STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; ORDER

MORRISON V. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge.

STIPULATION

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on June 20, 2014.

2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until July 31, 2014, and to exclude time between June 20, 2014, and July 31, 2014, under Local Code T4.

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 investigative reports and related documents from three multiple investigative agencies as well as both bank records and evidence recovered during the execution of multiple search warrants. All of this discovery has been either produced directly to counsel or made available for inspection and copying. b) Counsel for defendants desire additional time to inspect the evidence, conduct investigation, and discuss potential resolution with their clients and the government. This includes a discussion of the effect of a plea to various charges on the defendant's immigration status. c) Counsel for defendants believe that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny counsel 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 June 20, 2014 to July 31, 2014, 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 defendants' 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

Based on the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing, the Court hereby finds that the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court specifically finds that the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Based on these findings and pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the Court hereby adopts the stipulation of the parties in its entirety as its order. Time is excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this matter must be commenced beginning from the date of this stipulation through and including July 31, 2014, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) [reasonable time for defense counsel to prepare] and (Local Code T4). A new status conference date is hereby set for July 31, 2014, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 7.

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