Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Tyler, 2:13-CR-0011 (JAM). (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20140618892 Visitors: 7
Filed: Jun. 17, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 17, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCING JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge. The defendant Anthony Merrell Tyler, through his attorney, Ronald Peters, Esq and the United States of America, through its counsel of record, Benjamin B. Wagner, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California, hereby stipulate and agree that the Judgment and Sentencing scheduled for July 8, 2014, at 9:45 am should be continued to September 16, 2014 at 9:45 a.m. Defendant's attorney and th
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCING

JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.

The defendant Anthony Merrell Tyler, through his attorney, Ronald Peters, Esq and the United States of America, through its counsel of record, Benjamin B. Wagner, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California, hereby stipulate and agree that the Judgment and Sentencing scheduled for July 8, 2014, at 9:45 am should be continued to September 16, 2014 at 9:45 a.m.

Defendant's attorney and the government have agreed that additional time is necessary to prepare for sentencing. The defense will require additional time to gather more information on one of the Defendant's previous convictions disclosed in the Presentence Report in order to effectively prepare and present arguments at the Sentencing hearing. The defense will also require additional time to address other factors affecting sentencing guideline calculations. The defense intends to review all documentation submitted regarding the sentencing of co-defendants, Perry Jackson and Billy Hammett, including Memorandums in aid of sentencing and objections.

Both parties stipulate that there is a reasonable basis for the continuance due to defense preparation.

DATE: June 16, 2014 BENJAMIN B. WAGNER U.S. Attorney

The Court, having considered the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefrom, adopts the stipulation of the parties in its entirety as its order. Based on the stipulation of the parties, the Court finds that the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and defendant continuity of counsel. The Court specifically finds that the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the interests of the public and that the time from the date of the stipulation, July 8, 2014 to and including September 16, 2014.

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