Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Wygant, Cr.S. 15-037-GEB. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20160523682 Visitors: 27
Filed: May 19, 2016
Latest Update: May 19, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr. , District Judge . Defendant MARK McLEOD WYGANT by and through his counsel, RACHELLE BARBOUR, of the Office of the Federal Defender, and the plaintiff, by and through Assistant United States Attorney MATTHEW MORRIS, hereby agree and request that the status conference set for May 20, 2016, be continued to June 17, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. The reason for this continuance is that defense counsel needs additional
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE

Defendant MARK McLEOD WYGANT by and through his counsel, RACHELLE BARBOUR, of the Office of the Federal Defender, and the plaintiff, by and through Assistant United States Attorney MATTHEW MORRIS, hereby agree and request that the status conference set for May 20, 2016, be continued to June 17, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.

The reason for this continuance is that defense counsel needs additional time to review the case with Mr. Wygant and the government to discuss a resolution. This continuance is necessary for the ongoing preparation of counsel. Counsel, along with the defendant, agree that the time from May 20, 2016 through June 17, 2016, should be excluded in computing the time within which trial must commence under the Speedy Trial Act, §§3161(h)(7)(A)and(B)(iv) and Local Code T4, [reasonable time to prepare] and that the ends of justice served by this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is continued to June 17, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., for further Status Conference.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161 (h)(7)(B)(iv) and Local Code T4, the period from May 20, 2016 up to and including June 17, 2016, is excluded from the time computations required by the Speedy Trial Act due to ongoing preparation of counsel, and that the ends of justice served by this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.

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