Filed: Apr. 24, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 24, 2019
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . STIPULATION 1. By previous order, this matter was set for a status conference on May 7, 2019, at 9:15 a.m., before Judge John A. Mendez. 2. By this stipulation, defendant Robert Maher now moves to continue the status conference until June 25, 2019, at 9:15 a.m. before Judge John A. Mendez, and to exclude time between May 7, 2019, and June 25, 2019, inclusive, under Local Code T4 (to allow defense
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . STIPULATION 1. By previous order, this matter was set for a status conference on May 7, 2019, at 9:15 a.m., before Judge John A. Mendez. 2. By this stipulation, defendant Robert Maher now moves to continue the status conference until June 25, 2019, at 9:15 a.m. before Judge John A. Mendez, and to exclude time between May 7, 2019, and June 25, 2019, inclusive, under Local Code T4 (to allow defense c..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE
JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
STIPULATION
1. By previous order, this matter was set for a status conference on May 7, 2019, at 9:15 a.m., before Judge John A. Mendez.
2. By this stipulation, defendant Robert Maher now moves to continue the status conference until June 25, 2019, at 9:15 a.m. before Judge John A. Mendez, and to exclude time between May 7, 2019, and June 25, 2019, inclusive, under Local Code T4 (to allow defense counsel time to prepare).
3. Defendant Robert Maher, by and through his counsel, Candice L. Fields, and the United States, through its counsel, Amy Hitchcock, Assistant United States Attorney, agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:
a. On or around December 17, 2018, the government produced more than 14,000 pages of discovery associated with this case directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying.
b. Counsel for defendant Maher desires additional time to review the discovery produced in this matter, consult with her client, review the current charges, conduct investigation and research related to the charges, and to discuss potential resolution with her client.
c. Counsel for defendant Maher believes 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.
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.
4. 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 May 7, 2019, to June 25, 2019, 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 defendants in a speedy trial.
5. 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.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the status conference hearing set for defendant Robert Maher on May 7, 2019, at 9:15 a.m., be vacated and continued to June 25, 2019, at 9:15 a.m.
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 from May 7, 2019 through June 25, 2019, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(7)(A), (B)(iv) and Local Code T4, because it results from a continuance granted by the Court at defendant Robert Maher'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.
