U.S. v. MELLOR, 2:16-CR-068 TLN. (2017)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20170517a48
Visitors: 9
Filed: May 16, 2017
Latest Update: May 16, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . The parties to this action, Plaintiff United States of America by and through Assistant United States Attorney Ross K. Naughton, and Defendant Brian Mellor by and through his attorney Todd D. Leras, stipulate as follows: 1. This matter is presently set for a status conference on May 18, 2017. The government previously provided defense counsel with discovery in
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . The parties to this action, Plaintiff United States of America by and through Assistant United States Attorney Ross K. Naughton, and Defendant Brian Mellor by and through his attorney Todd D. Leras, stipulate as follows: 1. This matter is presently set for a status conference on May 18, 2017. The government previously provided defense counsel with discovery in t..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
The parties to this action, Plaintiff United States of America by and through Assistant United States Attorney Ross K. Naughton, and Defendant Brian Mellor by and through his attorney Todd D. Leras, stipulate as follows:
1. This matter is presently set for a status conference on May 18, 2017. The government previously provided defense counsel with discovery in the form of reports of investigation, text messages, photographs and other materials related to the government's investigation of this matter.
2. Most of the events relevant to defendant's alleged conduct in this case occurred near Lodi, California. Many of the potential witnesses live near Lodi and Stockton, California, 35 to 45 miles from Sacramento. Defense counsel requires additional time to complete investigation. In addition, defense counsel requires time to discuss the results of defense investigation with Defendant and to conduct legal research relevant to issues presented in the case. The defense is therefore requesting to continue the status conference to July 13, 2017.
3. Counsel for Defendant believes that failure to grant additional time as requested would deny him the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The government does not oppose the request.
4. Based on the above-stated facts, the parties jointly request that the Court find that the ends of justice served by continuing the case as requested outweigh the best interest of the public and the Defendant in a trial within the time prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act.
5. 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 May 18, 2017 to July 13, 2017, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), and (B) (iv) [Local Code T-4] because it results from a continuance granted by the Court at Defendant's request on the basis that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial.
6. 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.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Ross Naughton has reviewed this proposed order and authorized Todd Leras to sign it on his behalf.
ORDER
BASED ON THE REPRESENTATIONS AND STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, it is hereby ordered that the status conference in this matter scheduled for May 18, 2017 is vacated. A new status conference is scheduled for July 13, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. The Court further finds, based on the representations of the parties and Defendant's request, that the ends of justice served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Time shall be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv) and Local Code T-4, to allow necessary attorney preparation taking into consideration the exercise of due diligence for the period from May 18, 2017 up to and including
Source: Leagle
