Filed: Aug. 23, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 23, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . STIPULATION 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on August 28, 2017, before the previously assigned judge, United States Senior District Judge William B. Shubb. 2. On August 23, 2017, United States Senior District Judge William B. Shubb declined acceptance of this matter and vacated the August 28, 2017 hearing date, subject to resetting the matter befo
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . STIPULATION 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on August 28, 2017, before the previously assigned judge, United States Senior District Judge William B. Shubb. 2. On August 23, 2017, United States Senior District Judge William B. Shubb declined acceptance of this matter and vacated the August 28, 2017 hearing date, subject to resetting the matter befor..
More
STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER
JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
STIPULATION
1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on August 28, 2017, before the previously assigned judge, United States Senior District Judge William B. Shubb.
2. On August 23, 2017, United States Senior District Judge William B. Shubb declined acceptance of this matter and vacated the August 28, 2017 hearing date, subject to resetting the matter before the newly assigned district judge. (Order, Aug. 23, 2017, Dkt. 58.) The minutes within the Notice of Electronic Filing associated with the August 23, 2017 order reflect that the matter has been reassigned to United States District Judge John A. Mendez (ECF No. 58).
3. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until November 14, 2017, at 9:15 a.m., and to exclude time between August 28, 2017, and November 14, 2017, under Local Code T4.
4. 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 documents, financial records, video recordings, audio recordings, transcripts, and native Excel files, Bates-numbered CHAPIN_00000001 through CHAPIN_00017569. All of this discovery has been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying to those counsel who have requested discovery under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16. Much of the discovery was made available and/or provided after the Court's approval of the parties' Stipulated Protective Order on April 28, 2017 (Dkt. No. 53).
b) Counsel for defendants desire additional time to review the discovery and materials produced by the government, review the current charges in light of the discovery and other materials produced by the government, consult with their respective clients, conduct investigation and research related to the pending charges, consider potential resolution, and otherwise prepare for trial.
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 August 28, 2017 to November 14, 2017, 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.
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.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
FINDINGS AND ORDER
IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED.
