Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Ramirez, CR-S-11-190 MCE. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20140626912 Visitors: 8
Filed: Jun. 25, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 25, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge. The United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Jason Hitt, Assistant United States Attorney, together with counsel for defendant Manuel Keith, Jan David Karowsky, Esq. hereby stipulate to the following: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status conference on June 26, 2014. 2. By this stipulation, Manuel Keith now moves to continue the status
More

STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge.

The United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Jason Hitt, Assistant United States Attorney, together with counsel for defendant Manuel Keith, Jan David Karowsky, Esq. hereby stipulate to the following:

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status conference on June 26, 2014.

2. By this stipulation, Manuel Keith now moves to continue the status conference until August 21, 2014 and to exclude time between June 26, 2014 and August 21, 2014 under the Local Code T-2 and T-4.

3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request the Court find the following:

a. This case was the product of a lengthy investigation in which wiretaps were utilized on multiple telephones. The government has produced discovery which to date includes 1,952 pages containing wiretap applications, periodic reports, and investigative materials. Additionally, the government has provided defense counsel with voluminous wiretap conversations. Counsel for the government and for defendant have been engaged in plea negotiations, which, to date, have not resulted in an agreement. However, both counsel are hopeful a mutually acceptable resolution may be achieved. Therefore, a continuance will provide the government and defense counsel the needed time to negotiate and hopefully, finalize a plea agreement. Further, counsel for Mr. Keith is in trial in a murder case in Sacramento County Superior Court and will probably not be physically available to attend the status conference on the date now set with the trial scheduled to last through July.

b. The Government does not object to the continuance.

c. Based on the above-stated findings, the ends of justice served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant 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 United States Code Section 3161(h)(7)(A) within which trial must commence, the time period of June 26, 2014 through August 21, 2014 inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 United States Code Section 3161(h)(7)(A) ) and (B)(ii) and (iv), corresponding to Local Code T-2 and T-4 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.

DATED: June 25, 2014 BENJAMIN WAGNER United States Attorney /s/Jason Hitt by Jason Hitt Assistant U.S. Attorney by Jan David Karowsky w/Mr. Hitt's consent

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer