Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Williams, 2:05-CR-501 TLN. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20160503a25 Visitors: 18
Filed: May 02, 2016
Latest Update: May 02, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . It is hereby stipulated and agreed to between the United States of America through Jason Hitt, Assistant U.S. Attorney, and defendant Omar Williams, by and through his attorney, Dan Koukol, that the Admit/Deny Hearing of May 5, 2016 be vacated and that an Admit/Deny Hearing be set for June 23, 2016 at 9:30 AM. This continuance is being requested because the parties need additional time to discuss the case and negotiate a revised plea
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER

It is hereby stipulated and agreed to between the United States of America through Jason Hitt, Assistant U.S. Attorney, and defendant Omar Williams, by and through his attorney, Dan Koukol, that the Admit/Deny Hearing of May 5, 2016 be vacated and that an Admit/Deny Hearing be set for June 23, 2016 at 9:30 AM.

This continuance is being requested because the parties need additional time to discuss the case and negotiate a revised plea agreement.

Counsel agree that the time between the signing of the requested order and June 23, 2016 will be excluded from the speedy trial calculation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(A) and (B) (Local Code T4) in that the defendants' and the public's interest in a speedy trial are outweighed by the interests of justice in permitting counsel adequate time to prepare.

DATED: APRIL 29, 2016 Respectfully submitted, /s/DAN KOUKOL FOR JASON HITT _________________________________ JASON HITT Assistant U.S. Attorney

IT IS SO ORDERED, that the Admit/Deny Hearing in the above-entitled matter, scheduled for May 5, 2016, be vacated and the matter continued to June 23, 2016 at 9:30 AM. The Court finds that time under the Speedy Trial Act shall be excluded through that date in order to afford counsel reasonable time to prepare. Based on the parties' representations, the Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants to a speedy trial.

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