U.S. v. Cline, 2:14-CR-0210-JAM. (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20160812894
Visitors: 10
Filed: Aug. 11, 2016
Latest Update: Aug. 11, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . Plaintiff United States of America, by and through Assistant United States Attorney Jason Hitt; defendant Leonard Walter, by and through counsel Scott L. Tedmon; and defendant James Cline, by and through counsel Danny D. Brace, Jr., hereby agree and stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status conference on August 16, 2016 at 9:15 a.m.
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . Plaintiff United States of America, by and through Assistant United States Attorney Jason Hitt; defendant Leonard Walter, by and through counsel Scott L. Tedmon; and defendant James Cline, by and through counsel Danny D. Brace, Jr., hereby agree and stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status conference on August 16, 2016 at 9:15 a.m. ..
More
STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER
JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
Plaintiff United States of America, by and through Assistant United States Attorney Jason Hitt; defendant Leonard Walter, by and through counsel Scott L. Tedmon; and defendant James Cline, by and through counsel Danny D. Brace, Jr., hereby agree and stipulate as follows:
1. By previous order, this matter was set for status conference on August 16, 2016 at 9:15 a.m.
2. By this stipulation, the parties now move to continue the status conference to Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 9:15 a.m., and to exclude time between August 16, 2016 and September 27, 2016 under Local Code T4.
3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request the Court find the following:
a) Defense counsel needs additional time to review the case, which includes government produced discovery. Additionally, defense counsel needs additional time to consult with their respective client regarding the status of the case, conduct defense research and investigation, and discuss the possibility of a plea resolution with the government.
b) Defense counsel believes the failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny each defendant reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. Counsel for the government has no objection to this request for additional time to prepare the case.
c) Based on the foregoing, the ends of justice served by continuing the case as requested outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act.
d) 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 August 16, 2016 to September 27, 2016, 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 the 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 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.
FINDINGS AND ORDER
IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
