Filed: Jan. 31, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 31, 2020
Summary: AMENDED STIPULATION AND ORDER SHEILA K. OBERTO , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through his counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. This matter was previously set for a status conference before Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on March 2, 2020, at 1 p.m. 2. The parties agree to continue the matter to May 18, 2020, at 1 p.m., to continue plea negotiations and to conduct pretrial investigation. A
Summary: AMENDED STIPULATION AND ORDER SHEILA K. OBERTO , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through his counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. This matter was previously set for a status conference before Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on March 2, 2020, at 1 p.m. 2. The parties agree to continue the matter to May 18, 2020, at 1 p.m., to continue plea negotiations and to conduct pretrial investigation. A ..
More
AMENDED STIPULATION AND ORDER
SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through his counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:
1. This matter was previously set for a status conference before Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on March 2, 2020, at 1 p.m.
2. The parties agree to continue the matter to May 18, 2020, at 1 p.m., to continue plea negotiations and to conduct pretrial investigation. A continuance is also needed to accommodate the schedule of Attorney Jesse J. Garcia, who has two homicide trials set between now and May.
3. The parties further agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:
a. The parties need additional time to assess a potential disposition of the case
b. The parties need additional time to ensure the availability and continuity of defense counsel.
b. The parties believe that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny the defendants the reasonable time necessary for effective resolution, further investigation, and/or trial preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and would deny the defense continuity of counsel.
c. 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.
d. 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 March 2, 2020, to May 18, 2020, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), because it results from a continuance granted by the Court at the parties' 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
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
DATED: January 30, 2020. Respectfully submitted,
McGREGOR W. SCOTT
United States Attorney
/s/Karen A. Escobar
KAREN A. ESCOBAR
Assistant United States Attorney
DATED: January 30, 2020.
/s/Jesse J. Garcia
JESSE J. GARCIA
Counsel for Joseph D. Sanford
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
