Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Hoffmann, 2:19-MJ-00073-AC. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20190613a87 Visitors: 8
Filed: Jun. 10, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 10, 2019
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; [PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER EDMUND F. BRENNAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through defendant's counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. A complaint was filed against the defendant on May 13, 2019. The defendant was arrested in the Central District of California on the complaint on May 16, 2019. The defendant was orde
More

STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; [PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER

Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through defendant's counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. A complaint was filed against the defendant on May 13, 2019. The defendant was arrested in the Central District of California on the complaint on May 16, 2019. The defendant was ordered detained by Magistrate Judge Maria A. Audero on June 5, 2019. The defendant has not yet made his initial appearance in the Eastern District of California. Under Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161(b), the government is required to file an indictment of the defendant no later than June 15, 2019.

2. By this stipulation, defendant and the government now move to continue the date by which the government would be required to file an indictment until July 25, 2019.

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

a) Defense counsel and the government are currently in discussions to have the defendant plead guilty to a pre-indictment charge. The government is in the process of making such an offer to the defendant. As part of those pre-indictment plea discussions, defense counsel will need time to review discovery in this case, which includes many reports, physical evidence, screenshots, and undercover communications. b) Counsel for defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny him/her the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. c) The government does not object to the continuance. d) 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 having an indictment returned within thirty days of the defendant's arrest as prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act. e) The parties agree that time will be excluded for the government to file an indictment from the date of this order until July 25, 2019.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

MCGREGOR W. SCOTT United States Attorney /s/GRANT B. RABENN GRANT B. RABENN Assistant United States Attorney Dated: June 10, 2019. /s/ANDREW FLIER ANDREW FLIER Counsel for Defendant IAN HOFFMANN

[PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND 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