U.S. v. Webber, CR 13-662 RS. (2014)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20140409a33
Visitors: 3
Filed: Apr. 07, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 07, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION and [PROPOSED] ORDER TO ALTER BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL MOTIONS RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge. Undersigned counsel stipulate as follows: 1. Defense counsel for Mr. Webber did not file a motion as scheduled on March 11, 2014 due to the fact that she was preparing for trial, which commenced March 10, 2014 for jury selection and proceeded March 17-20, 2014; 2. Since that time, defense counsel for Mr. Webber has had additional challenges with scheduling; namely, c
Summary: STIPULATION and [PROPOSED] ORDER TO ALTER BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL MOTIONS RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge. Undersigned counsel stipulate as follows: 1. Defense counsel for Mr. Webber did not file a motion as scheduled on March 11, 2014 due to the fact that she was preparing for trial, which commenced March 10, 2014 for jury selection and proceeded March 17-20, 2014; 2. Since that time, defense counsel for Mr. Webber has had additional challenges with scheduling; namely, co..
More
STIPULATION and [PROPOSED] ORDER TO ALTER BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL MOTIONS
RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge.
Undersigned counsel stipulate as follows:
1. Defense counsel for Mr. Webber did not file a motion as scheduled on March 11, 2014 due to the fact that she was preparing for trial, which commenced March 10, 2014 for jury selection and proceeded March 17-20, 2014;
2. Since that time, defense counsel for Mr. Webber has had additional challenges with scheduling; namely, conducting 4 sentencings that were put off for her last trial, and 2) preparing pretrial filings for another trial, commencing April 28, 2014 unexpectedly with a possible evidentiary hearing scheduled for April 18, 2014 in front of the Honorable Charles R. Breyer;
3. At the same time, government counsel is proceeding to trial April 21, 2014 and will not be done until early May;
4. Accordingly, the parties mutually request, with the permission and accord of counsel for Mr. Bercovich, an extension of time for the filing of the pretrial motion and motion hearing;
5. Accordingly, the parties stipulate that the briefing schedule for defendant's pretrial motions should be continued by two weeks, as follows:
6. Opening Brief Due: April 15, 2014
7. Response Due: May 9, 2014
8. Replies Due: May 13, 2014
9. Hearing: May 20, 2014 at 2:30 p.m.
10. The parties further agree that the hearing date of April 8, 2014 shall be moved to May 20, 2014 at 2:30 p.m.
11. The parties, including Mr. Bercovich, also submit and agree that an exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act is needed for the entire period of time between April 8, 2014 and May 20, 2014. The parties agree that the ends of justice served by granting such an exclusion of time for the purposes of effective preparation of counsel outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv).
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: April 7, 2014. ______________/S/_________________
CYNTHIA STIER
Assistant United States Attorney
[PROPOSED] ORDER
GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, it is hereby ORDERED that the briefing schedule suggested by the parties in the aforementioned stipulation is hereby adopted by this Court. The hearing date of April 8, 2014 shall be moved to May 20, 2014 at 2:30 p.m. The Court further finds that the exclusion from the time limits of this period applicable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161 is warranted and that the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Denying the requested exclusion of time would deprive the defendant effective preparation of counsel, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
