Filed: Sep. 11, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 11, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER DOCUMENTING EXCLUSION OF TIME EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . With the agreement of the parties in open court on August 26, 2015, the Court enters this order documenting the exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161, from August 26, 2015, to November 4, 2015. The Court finds and holds, as follows: 1. The parties appeared before the Court on August 26, 2015. The defendant Anderson was present and represented by counsel Patrick Ro
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER DOCUMENTING EXCLUSION OF TIME EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . With the agreement of the parties in open court on August 26, 2015, the Court enters this order documenting the exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161, from August 26, 2015, to November 4, 2015. The Court finds and holds, as follows: 1. The parties appeared before the Court on August 26, 2015. The defendant Anderson was present and represented by counsel Patrick Rob..
More
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER DOCUMENTING EXCLUSION OF TIME
EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.
With the agreement of the parties in open court on August 26, 2015, the Court enters this order documenting the exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, from August 26, 2015, to November 4, 2015. The Court finds and holds, as follows:
1. The parties appeared before the Court on August 26, 2015. The defendant Anderson was present and represented by counsel Patrick Robbins. The defendant Steever was not present. Counsel for Steever, Assistant Federal Public Defender Candis Mitchell, had previously advised the parties that Steever would not be present due to medical issues. At the appearance on August 26, 2015, counsel for Anderson advised that he had recently been appointed and required time to review discovery and discuss a possible resolution with the United States. Counsel for Steever was not present but Assistant Federal Public Defender Elizabeth Falk specially appeared for her. Assistant United States Attorney Denise Marie Barton also advised that the defendants are charged together, no motion for severance has been filed, and the United States believes that the defendants are properly joined for trial. Counsel jointly requested that the Court continue the matter to November 4, 2015, which will give counsel for Anderson an opportunity to review the discovery that has been produced and time to assess a possible resolution of the case.
2. Based on these facts, the Court finds that, taking into the account the public interest in the prompt disposition of criminal cases, granting the continuance until November 4, 2015, is necessary for effective preparation of defense counsel for both defendants and due to the fact that both defendants are still joined. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv), 3161(h)(6). Given these circumstances, the Court finds that the ends of justice served by excluding the period from August 26, 2015, to November 4, 2015, outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).
3. Accordingly, and with the consent of the parties, the Court orders that the period from August 26, 2015, to November 4, 2015 be excluded from Speedy Trial Act calculations under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(1)(D), 161(h)(6) and 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv).
SO STIPULATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
