Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Nunez, 2:17-CR-00149 TLN. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20190723989 Visitors: 5
Filed: Jul. 22, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 22, 2019
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE TO SEPTEMBER 12, 2019 AT 9:30 A.M. TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . STIPULATION Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, James Conolly, and Defendants Rigoberto Nunez, represented by Attorney Preciliano Martinez, Defendant Oscar Andrade represented by Attorney Dina Santos; Defendant Oscar Rodriguez, represented by David Fischer, hereby stipulate as fol
More

STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE TO SEPTEMBER 12, 2019 AT 9:30 A.M.

STIPULATION

Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, James Conolly, and Defendants Rigoberto Nunez, represented by Attorney Preciliano Martinez, Defendant Oscar Andrade represented by Attorney Dina Santos; Defendant Oscar Rodriguez, represented by David Fischer, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on July 25, 2019.

2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until September 12, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., and to exclude time between July 25, 2019, and September 12, 2019, under Local Codes T4 and M. Plaintiff does not oppose this request. The Defense continues to conduct investigation, review discovery and negotiate with the Government.

3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:

a) Counsel for defendants desire additional time to continue to conduct investigation, and to otherwise prepare for trial. Counsel for defendants believe that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny them the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The government does not object to the continuance. b) Based on the above-stated findings, the ends of justice served by continuing the case as requested outweigh the interest of the public and the defendant in a trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act. c) For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq., within which trial must commence, the time period July 25, 2019, and September 12 2019, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 3161(h)(7)(A), B(iv) [Local Code T4] for Mr. Nunez and Mr. Andrade, because it results form a continuance granted by the Court at defendants request on the basis of the Court's finding that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. d) For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §3161, et seq., within which trial must commence, the time period of July 25, 2019, and September 12, 2019, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(3)(A) & (B) [Local Code M]: unavailability of a defendant for Mr. Rodriguez.

4. Nothing in this stipulation and order shall preclude a finding that other provisions of the Speedy Trial Act dictate that additional time periods are excludable from the period within which a trial must commence.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: July 18, 2019. /s/ James Conolly JAMES CONOLLY Assistant United States Attorney Dated: July 18, 2019. /s/ Preciliano Martinez PRECILIANO MARTINEZ, ESQ. Attorney for Rigoberto Nunez Dated: July 18, 2019. /s/ Dina L. Santos DINA L. SANTOS, ESQ. Attorney for Oscar Andrade Dated: July 18, 2019. /s/ David Fischer DAVID FISCHER, ESQ. Attorney for Oscar Rodriguez

ORDER

IT IS SO FOUND AND 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