Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Teausant, 2:14-CR-00087 JAM. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20150911691 Visitors: 19
Filed: Sep. 10, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 10, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . It is hereby stipulated and agreed to between the United States of America through JEAN HOBLER, Assistant U.S. Attorney and defendant NICHOLAS TEAUSANT by and through his counsel, MATTHEW SCOBLE and BENJAMIN GALLOWAY, Assistant Federal Defenders, that the status conference set for September 15, 2015, be continued to October 20, 2015 at 9:15 a.m. The reasons for this continuance are as follows. First, the
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE

It is hereby stipulated and agreed to between the United States of America through JEAN HOBLER, Assistant U.S. Attorney and defendant NICHOLAS TEAUSANT by and through his counsel, MATTHEW SCOBLE and BENJAMIN GALLOWAY, Assistant Federal Defenders, that the status conference set for September 15, 2015, be continued to October 20, 2015 at 9:15 a.m.

The reasons for this continuance are as follows. First, the case has previously been designated complex, and the parties continue to work through the issues that render it complex. Second, more time is needed for the defense to continue reviewing the large volume of discovery provided to date. The most recent production included a significant volume of classified information. Classified information requires special handling, making the review of the latest production time-consuming. Finally, the parties continue to meet and confer in efforts to reach a negotiated resolution of the case.

The parties stipulate that the ends of justice to be served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and defendant in a speedy trial, so that counsel for the defendant may have reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) [reasonable time for counsel to prepare] (Local Code T-4); for complexity under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii) and (Local Code T-2).

ORDER

The Court, having received, read, and considered the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefrom, adopts the stipulation of the parties in its entirety as its order. The Court specifically finds that the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court finds that the ends of justice to be served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and defendant in a speedy trial.

The Court orders that the time from the date of the parties stipulation, up to and including October 20, 2015, shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) [reasonable time for counsel to prepare] (Local Code T-4); for complexity under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii) and (Local Code T-2). It is further ordered that the September 15, 2015 status conference shall be continued until October 20, 2015, at 9:15 a.m.

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