STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE; FINDINGS AND ORDER

LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, Chief District Judge.

STIPULATION

The 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 trial on February 28, 2017 at 8:30 a.m.

2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the trial date until October 17, 2017 at 8:30 a.m. before the Court, and to exclude time between the date of this stipulation and October 17, 2017 under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and 3161(h)(7)(B)(i) and (iv). The government joins in 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 thus far includes over 37,000 pages of discovery, including investigative reports, surveillance video, records from search warrants and related documents. All of this discovery has been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying.

b. Counsel for defendants Raul Oropeza Lopez and Ana Maria Oropeza desire additional time in preparation of this case. Both counsel need additional time to continue to review the voluminous discovery and prepare for trial. In light of their other trials scheduled this year, the next, earliest available trial date for defense counsel is in October 2017. Defense counsel also needs additional time to conduct further investigation and have further settlement negotiations with the government.

c. The parties' case preparation and negotiations over case resolution have been complicated by the absence of current assigned government counsel, who has been out of office due to a family medical emergency. The government anticipates that the assigned Assistant United States Attorney's absence from the office will continue through some or all of February 2017, and the case will likely be reassigned for an October 2017 trial. Thus, the requested continuance will conserve time and resources for the parties and the court.

d. Counsel for defendants believe that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny them the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

e. The government does not object to, and joins in the request for, the continuance.

f. 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.

g. 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 the date of this stipulation to November 21, 2016, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and 3161(h)(7)(B)(i) and (iv) 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 defendants 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

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 the date of this stipulation to October 17, 2017, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and 3161(h)(7)(B)(i) and (iv) 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 defendants in a speedy trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.