U.S. v. SINGH, 2:13-CR-00084-TLN. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20150325910
Visitors: 8
Filed: Mar. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 23, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . STIPULATION 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on March 26, 2015. 2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until April 30, 2015, and to exclude time between March 26, 2015 and April 30, 2015 under Local Code T4. 3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following: a. Counsel for def
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . STIPULATION 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on March 26, 2015. 2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until April 30, 2015, and to exclude time between March 26, 2015 and April 30, 2015 under Local Code T4. 3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following: a. Counsel for defe..
More
STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
STIPULATION
1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on March 26, 2015.
2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until April 30, 2015, and to exclude time between March 26, 2015 and April 30, 2015 under Local Code T4.
3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:
a. Counsel for defendant Rajeshwar Singh has a conflict and is not available to appear on March 26, 2015 because he is counsel of record and needs to appear that same day in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District in United States v. Leong et al, N.D. Cal. No. 15-00127 WHO, a 17 defendant case recently indicted which alleges numerous drug distribution and related conspiracy charges. Counsel for defendants are also requesting and need more time in which to conduct plea negotiations in this case. These negotiations will require additional preparation time, including time to consult with the defendants and conduct additional investigation based on discovery provided by the government. The next date at which all counsel are available to appear in this case is April 30, 2015.
b. Counsel for defendants believe 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, and continuity of counsel.
c. The government does not object to the continuance.
d. 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 date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act.
e. 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 March 26, 2015 to April 30, 2015, 2014 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 defendants' 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 defendants 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.
Source: Leagle
