United States v. Arnold, 2:19-CR-00043. (2020)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20200127937
Visitors: 6
Filed: Jan. 24, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 24, 2020
Summary: AMENDED STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. , District Judge . STIPULATION 1. By sua sponte minute order of the court issued on December 20, 2019, the status conference in this matter was moved from January 23, 2020 to April 23, 2020 without an order for exclusion of time. 2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to exclude time from the date of January 23, 2020 through the new status conference date of April 23, 2020 und
Summary: AMENDED STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. , District Judge . STIPULATION 1. By sua sponte minute order of the court issued on December 20, 2019, the status conference in this matter was moved from January 23, 2020 to April 23, 2020 without an order for exclusion of time. 2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to exclude time from the date of January 23, 2020 through the new status conference date of April 23, 2020 unde..
More
AMENDED STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; ORDER
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., District Judge.
STIPULATION
1. By sua sponte minute order of the court issued on December 20, 2019, the status conference in this matter was moved from January 23, 2020 to April 23, 2020 without an order for exclusion of time.
2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to exclude time from the date of January 23, 2020 through the new status conference date of April 23, 2020 under Local Code T4.
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 reports, voluminous financial records, and other documentary evidence. All of this discovery has been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying.
b) Counsel for defendants desire additional time to consult with his/her clients, to review the current discovery, and to discuss potential resolutions with his/her clients.
c) Counsel for 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 defendant 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 January 23, 2020 through April 23, 2020 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 defendant's 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 defendant 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.
Dated: January 16, 2020 McGREGOR W. SCOTT
United States Attorney
/s/ GRANT B. RABENN
GRANT B. RABENN
Assistant United States Attorney
Dated: January 16, 2020 /s/ Mia Crager
MIA CRAGER
Counsel for Defendant
JASON ARNOLD
Dated: January 16, 2020 /s/ Kresta Daly
KRESTA DALY
Counsel for Defendant
DAVID WHITE
Dated: January 16, 2020 /s/ David Garland
DAVID GARLAND
Counsel for Defendant
ALICIA McCOY
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
