Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Sharpe, 2:14-cr-043 GEB. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20160902994 Visitors: 4
Filed: Sep. 01, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 01, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr. , Senior District Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Phillip A. Talbert, Acting U.S. Attorney, through Amy Schuller Hitchcock, Assistant United States Attorney, attorney for Plaintiff, and Heather Williams, Federal Defender, through Assistant Federal Defender Benjamin D. Galloway, attorney for Joseph Sharpe, and attorneys, William Bonham, counsel for Donald Loyde Harned; and Dustin Johnson, co
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Phillip A. Talbert, Acting U.S. Attorney, through Amy Schuller Hitchcock, Assistant United States Attorney, attorney for Plaintiff, and Heather Williams, Federal Defender, through Assistant Federal Defender Benjamin D. Galloway, attorney for Joseph Sharpe, and attorneys, William Bonham, counsel for Donald Loyde Harned; and Dustin Johnson, counsel for Edwin Forrest Ludwig, III, that the status conference scheduled for September 2, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., be vacated and the matter continued to September 30, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., for further status conference.

This continuance is necessary as the parties are at various stages in plea negotiations and require additional time to review discovery, investigate the facts of this case, and hold discussions with the government and their respective clients in furtherance of resolution. Counsel for the government is working to produce and revise plea offers; counsel for Mr. Sharpe is in the process of obtaining documents relating to a medical diagnosis, and also looking into an appeal now pending in state court, both of which are likely to affect resolution; counsel for Harned is a proposed plea offer and needs further time to investigate and to meet with his client; and counsel for Ludwig, III received a proposed plea agreement and further time is needed to meet with his client and conduct investigation based thereon.

Based upon the foregoing, the parties agree time under the Speedy Trial Act should be excluded of this order's date through and including September 30, 2016; pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161 (h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv)[reasonable time to prepare] and General Order 479, Local Code T4 based upon continuity of counsel and defense preparation.

Counsel and the defendants also agree that the ends of justice served by the Court granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, the Court, having received, read, and considered the parties' stipulation, and good cause appearing therefrom, adopts the parties' stipulation in its entirety as its order. The Court specifically finds the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court finds the ends of justice are served by granting the requested continuance and outweigh the best interests of the public and defendants in a speedy trial.

The Court orders the time from the date the parties stipulated, up to and including September 30, 2016, shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and(B)(iv) [reasonable time for counsel to prepare] and General Order 479, (Local Code T4). It is further ordered the September 2, 2016 status conference shall be continued until September 30, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.

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