Filed: Jun. 25, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 25, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER SHEILA K. OBERTO , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through defendant's counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on June 29, 2015. 2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until July 20, 2015 at 1:00 pm, and to exclude time b
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER SHEILA K. OBERTO , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through defendant's counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on June 29, 2015. 2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until July 20, 2015 at 1:00 pm, and to exclude time be..
More
STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER
SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through defendant's counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:
1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on June 29, 2015.
2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until July 20, 2015 at 1:00 pm, and to exclude time between June 29, 2015, and July 20, 2015 at 1:00 pm, 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 voluminous records, photographs, reports, and seized evidence. With the exception of a small amount of supplemental discovery that will be produced in the next two weeks, this discovery has been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying.
b) Counsel for defendant desires additional time to review the discovery, conduct investigation, and substitute in new counsel. In addition, defendant has retained separate attorney to take the lead in this matter, Jeffrey Anderson of Cohen Durrett in Sacramento. However, Mr. Anderson is presently in trial in Sacramento Superior Court until July 2, 2015.
c) Counsel for defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny him/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 June 29, 2015 to July 20, 2015 at 1:00 pm, 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 ORDERED.
