STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE MOTION HEARING DATE AND MODIFY MOTION BRIEFING SCHEDULE

WILLIAM B. SHUBB, Senior District Judge.

The defendant, DARRYL ISOM, by and through his undersigned counsel and the United States by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby agree and request that the motion hearing currently set for November 18, 2013 at 9:00 am be vacated and reset for January 6, 2014 at 9:00 am.

The parties further agree and request that the motion briefing schedule be modified as follows:

A continuance is necessary to provide counsel with additional time for case preparation, investigation, research, and preparation of pre-trial motions, as well as, ongoing plea and sentencing negotiations.

The parties stipulate that the failure to grant a continuance in this matter would deny counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence; that the ends of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial; and that time should be excluded from the computation of time within which trial must commence under the Speedy Trial Act from October 29, 2013, up to and including January 6, 2014, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) and Local Code T-4, to allow defense counsel reasonable time to prepare, and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D) and Local Code E upon the filing of motions.

I, William E. Bonham, the filing party, have received authorization from AUSA William Wong to sign and submit this stipulation and proposed order on their behalf.

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED. The motion hearing currently set for Monday, November 18, 2013 at 9:00 am is vacated and reset for Monday, January 6, 2014, at 9:00 a.m. It is further ordered that the motion briefing schedule is modified as follows:

Based on the stipulation of the parties, I find that the failure to grant such a continuance would deny counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. Accordingly, the time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act is excluded from the date of the parties' stipulation, October 29, 2013, up to and including the date of the new motion hearing, January 6, 2014, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) and Local Code T4 and 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D) and Local Code E upon the filing of motions. I specifically find that the ends of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and defendants in a speedy trial within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) and Local Code T-4.