Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Thompson, 13-00273 MCE. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20150107580 Visitors: 14
Filed: Jan. 05, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 05, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge. The United States of America, through its counsels of record, Benjamin B. Wagner, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California, and Matthew G. Morris, Assistant United States Attorney, and defendant Samuel Clinton Thompson, through his attorney, Ronald Peters, Esq, hereby stipulate and agree that the status conference scheduled for December 18, 2014 at 9:00 am should be continue
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE

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

The United States of America, through its counsels of record, Benjamin B. Wagner, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California, and Matthew G. Morris, Assistant United States Attorney, and defendant Samuel Clinton Thompson, through his attorney, Ronald Peters, Esq, hereby stipulate and agree that the status conference scheduled for December 18, 2014 at 9:00 am should be continued to January 29, 2015 at 9:00 a.m.

Defendant continues to be enrolled in an outpatient therapy program that will be relevant to his sentencing guidelines. Defendant intends to present additional information in this regard to the government.

Parties agree that time should be excluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), and Local Code T-4 — reasonable time to prepare and for continuity of counsel. The parties agree that time be excluded under this provision December 18, 2014 to and including January 29, 2015.

Respectfully Submitted, BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney DATE: December 18, 2014. /s/ Matthew G. Morris MATTHEW G. MORRIS Assistant U.S. Attorney

ORDER

The Court, having considered the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefrom, adopts the stipulation of the parties in its entirety as its order. Based on the stipulation of the parties, the Court finds that the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and defendant continuity of counsel. The Court specifically finds that the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the interests of the public and that the time from the date of the stipulation, December 18. 2014, to and including January 29, 2015.

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