Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. KAUR, 2:13-CR-00006 MCE. (2013)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20131125642 Visitors: 37
Filed: Nov. 21, 2013
Latest Update: Nov. 21, 2013
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge. STIPULATION Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and the defendants, by and through each counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on November 21, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. 2. By this stipulation, the defendants now move to continue the status conference until January 30, 2013, at
More

STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; ORDER

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge.

STIPULATION

Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and the defendants, by and through each counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on November 21, 2013, at 9:00 a.m.

2. By this stipulation, the defendants now move to continue the status conference until January 30, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., and to exclude time between November 21, 2013, and January 30, 2014, under Local Code T4. Plaintiff does not oppose this request.

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

a. The government has represented that the discovery associated with this case includes approximately 7,722 pages of investigative reports and related documents in electronic form which includes FBI-302s, interview memoranda, the search warrants and affidavit, redacted transcripts of recorded conversations and telephone calls, business records from the Employment Development Department, and deposition transcripts from the prior civil case. The government has also made available for inspection and copying additional business records from the Employment Development Department. These records are voluminous.

b. Counsel for all of the defendants desires additional time to consult with their respective clients, to review the current charges, to conduct investigation and research related to the charges, to review and copy discovery for this matter, to discuss potential resolutions with their clients, to prepare pretrial motions, and to otherwise prepare for trial.

c. Counsel for the defendants believe that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny them the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

d. The government does not object to the continuance.

e. 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 defendants in a trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act.

f. 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 November 21, 2013, and January 30, 2014, 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 defendants' 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 defendants in a speedy trial.

4. 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.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

IT IS SO 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