Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. PIO, 1:15-CR-00188-AWI-BAM. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20150923831 Visitors: 106
Filed: Sep. 22, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 22, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATE BARBARA A. McAULIFFE , Magistrate Judge . STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and Defendant, by and through her counsel of record, stipulate to continue the status hearing, current set for September 28, 2015, to November 9, 2011, at 1:00 p.m. Defense counsel is scheduled to be in a federal sentencing hearing on September 28, 2015, in Idaho. In addition, defense counsel
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATE

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE

Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and Defendant, by and through her counsel of record, stipulate to continue the status hearing, current set for September 28, 2015, to November 9, 2011, at 1:00 p.m.

Defense counsel is scheduled to be in a federal sentencing hearing on September 28, 2015, in Idaho. In addition, defense counsel has a number of matters, including at least two trials, set in October 2015, which are requiring his attention and preparation. Counsel for the Defendant has received discovery in this matter and needs further time to investigate, study and prepare applicable motions, to address the possibility of settlement, and to further consult with the Defendant.

The parties agree to exclude time to November 9, 2015, and agree that the continuance of the hearing date will serve the ends of justice, and that the need for a continuance outweighs the interest of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial, and that the delay occasioned by such continuance is excluded from the Speedy Trial Act's time limits pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

Based on the stipulation of counsel and for good cause, it is ORDERED that the 1st STATUS CONFERENCE hearing in this matter is continued from September 28, 2015, to November 9, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. before Judge McAuliffe. The court further finds that the ends of justice served by a continuance outweigh the interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, and that the delay occasioned by such continuance is excluded from the Speedy Trial Act's time limits pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

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