U.S. v. Thompson, 2:13-CR-273-GEB (2017)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20170130669
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jan. 26, 2017
Latest Update: Jan. 26, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO CONTINUE SENTENCING AND STATUS HEARINGS GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr. , District Judge . The parties, by and through the undersigned attorneys of record, stipulate and request as follows: By previous order, this matter was set in case number 2:13-cr-273 for entry of judgment and sentence on January 27, 2017. The parties stipulate and request: 1. That case 2:13-cr-273-GEB be continued to March 3, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. for a hearing on the status regarding judgment a
Summary: STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO CONTINUE SENTENCING AND STATUS HEARINGS GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr. , District Judge . The parties, by and through the undersigned attorneys of record, stipulate and request as follows: By previous order, this matter was set in case number 2:13-cr-273 for entry of judgment and sentence on January 27, 2017. The parties stipulate and request: 1. That case 2:13-cr-273-GEB be continued to March 3, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. for a hearing on the status regarding judgment an..
More
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO CONTINUE SENTENCING AND STATUS HEARINGS
GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., District Judge.
The parties, by and through the undersigned attorneys of record, stipulate and request as follows:
By previous order, this matter was set in case number 2:13-cr-273 for entry of judgment and sentence on January 27, 2017. The parties stipulate and request:
1. That case 2:13-cr-273-GEB be continued to March 3, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. for a hearing on the status regarding judgment and sentencing.
2. That case 2:16-cr-232-GEB be set for a status hearing on March 3, 2017 at 9:00 a.m.
a. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:
i. The government has represented that the discovery associated with case 2:16-cr-232-GEB includes more than one hundred pages of discovery and electronic devices that the government alleges contain material that cannot be turned over due to the presence of contraband. All of this discovery has either been produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying.
ii. Counsel for defendant desires additional time to review the discovery and consider options for resolution or trial.
iii. Counsel for defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny him the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
iv. The government does not object to the continuance.
v. 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.
vi. 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 January 27, 2017 to March 3, 2017, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 3161(h)(7)(A), B(iv) [Local Code T4] because it results from a continuance granted by the Court at defendant's 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 defendant in a speedy trial.
3. 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.
SO STIPULATED.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
