Filed: Aug. 04, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 04, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION CONCERNING STATUS CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . STIPULATION 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on August 3, 2017 and continued to September 6, 2017 for the other defendants. On August 2, 2017, defendant Zhongzhang Yang was set for change of plea, but because of drafting errors in the plea agreement and the need to explain the changes, this Court granted a further continu
Summary: STIPULATION CONCERNING STATUS CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . STIPULATION 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on August 3, 2017 and continued to September 6, 2017 for the other defendants. On August 2, 2017, defendant Zhongzhang Yang was set for change of plea, but because of drafting errors in the plea agreement and the need to explain the changes, this Court granted a further continua..
More
STIPULATION CONCERNING STATUS CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.
STIPULATION
1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on August 3, 2017 and continued to September 6, 2017 for the other defendants. On August 2, 2017, defendant Zhongzhang Yang was set for change of plea, but because of drafting errors in the plea agreement and the need to explain the changes, this Court granted a further continuance of the status conference to August 23, 2017.
2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to exclude time between August 3, 2017, and August 23, 2017, under Local Code T4.
3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:
a) The government recently provided cell phone data for Zhongzhang Yang.
b) Counsel for defendant desires additional time to review the new discovery, consult with his client, and discuss developments with his client.
c) Counsel for defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested
continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
d) Counsel needs to explain changes to the plea agreement to the defendant with the aid of the Mandarin interpreter to interpret and explain court filings, discovery, and correspondence from the government to his client.
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. § 3161, et seq., within which trial must commence, the time period of August 3, 2017 to August 23, 2017, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 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 Court's 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.
FINDINGS AND ORDER
IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED.
