welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
  1. Home
  2. Case Laws
  3. District Court, E.D. California
  4. 2017
  5. U.S. v. Dunn, 2:17-cr-0046-DB. (2017)

U.S. v. Dunn, 2:17-cr-0046-DB. (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20170809794 Visitors: 11
Filed: Aug. 07, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 07, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; [PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER DEBORAH BARNES , Magistrate Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED BY AND AMONG ALL PARTIES 1. The case was set for a status conference on August 8, 2017. 2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until September 19, 2017, at 9:00 a.m., and to exclude time between August 8, 2017, and September 19, 2017, under Local Code T4. 3. The parties agree and stipulate,
More

STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; [PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED BY AND AMONG ALL PARTIES

1. The case was set for a status conference on August 8, 2017. 2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until September 19, 2017, at 9:00 a.m., and to exclude time between August 8, 2017, and September 19, 2017, under Local Code T4. 3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following: a. The government has represented that the discovery associated with this case includes approximately twenty-six (26) pages of documents. All of this discovery has either been produced directly to the defense and/or made available for inspection or copying. b. On June 20, 2017, the password to open and view the discovery was made available to the defense. c. The defense is conducting investigation by interviewing witnesses and requesting background information on the defendant and other parties related to the case. d. The defense needs additional time to continue locating potential witnesses, interviewing witnesses, and preparing a defense. e. The government does not object to the continuance. f. 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. g. For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C sec. 3161, et seq., within which trial must commence, the time period of August 8, 2017 to September 19, 2017, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 3161(h)(7)(A), B(iv) [Local Code T4] because it results from a continuance granted by the Court at defendant's request on the basis of the Courts 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 within which a trial must commence.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source:  Leagle
Lawyers who claimed
No Lawyers
Citations
2:17-cr-0046-DB.
Counsels
  • Daniel Lars Olsen
  • Cameron Desmond
Similar Cases

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