U.S. v. Mendoza, 1:18 CR 00010 LJO SKO. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20181119765
Visitors: 21
Filed: Nov. 16, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 16, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE SHEILA K. OBERTO , Magistrate Judge . STIPULATION Plaintiff, United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and Defendant Ramon Inzunza Mendoza, by and through his counsels of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status conference on November 19, 2018 at 1:00 p.m. and time was ordered excluded in the interest of justice. 2. By this stipulation, the parties hereby move to adv
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE SHEILA K. OBERTO , Magistrate Judge . STIPULATION Plaintiff, United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and Defendant Ramon Inzunza Mendoza, by and through his counsels of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status conference on November 19, 2018 at 1:00 p.m. and time was ordered excluded in the interest of justice. 2. By this stipulation, the parties hereby move to adva..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE
SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.
STIPULATION
Plaintiff, United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and Defendant Ramon Inzunza Mendoza, by and through his counsels of record, hereby stipulate as follows:
1. By previous order, this matter was set for status conference on November 19, 2018 at 1:00 p.m. and time was ordered excluded in the interest of justice.
2. By this stipulation, the parties hereby move to advance and vacate the status conference now set for November 19, 2018 and instead re-calendar the matter for a change of plea on December 10, 2018. The parties have just reached a resolution.
3. Thus, counsel for the defendant needs additional time to properly prepare. Counsel for the defendant believes 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 and the Government does not object to the continuance.
4. 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 defendants in a trial within the original dates prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act.
5. 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 November 19, 2018 to December 10, 2018, 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 defendant's request on the basis of the Court's findings that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
ORDERS
Source: Leagle
