Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. YAKOVLEV, 12-052 WBS. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20140908768 Visitors: 1
Filed: Sep. 05, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 05, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE; FINDING OF EXCLUDABLE TIME WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge. STIPULATION Plaintiff, United States of America, through Assistant U.S. Attorney Jean Hobler and defendant, Leonid Yakovlev, through his attorney, Christopher Haydn-Myer, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 1. A status conference is currently set for September 8, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. 2. By this stipulation, the above-named defendant now moves to continue the stat
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE; FINDING OF EXCLUDABLE TIME

WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.

STIPULATION

Plaintiff, United States of America, through Assistant U.S. Attorney Jean Hobler and defendant, Leonid Yakovlev, through his attorney, Christopher Haydn-Myer, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

1. A status conference is currently set for September 8, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. 2. By this stipulation, the above-named defendant now moves to continue the status Conference to September 15, 2014 at 9:30 a.m., and to exclude time between September 8, 2014 to September 15, 2014 under Local Code T4. Plaintiff does not oppose this request. 3. The basis upon which the parties agree to this proposed continuance of the status conference is as follows: a. The government has produced discovery which to date includes over 5000 pages containing investigative materials. There is also electronic discovery relating to approximately 40,000 transactions that form the basis of the charges. Counsel made my first appearance before the Court on August 19, 2013. On July 21, 2014, counsel wrote and e-mailed (and sent through traditional mail) to the government a letter with attachments proposing a resolution to the case, and the government has responded with a Plea Agreement that Mr. Yakovlev is reviewing with counsel. The defense is continuing to research applicable cases and assessing whether any additional interviews will be necessary to facilitate an appropriate resolution of this case. b. Counsel for the defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny his client the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. c. Plaintiff does not object to the continuance. d. Based on the above-stated findings, the ends of justice served by continuing the status conference as requested outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant 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, 16 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq., within which trial must commence, the time period from September 8, 2014 to September 15, 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 by the Court at the 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. 5. Finally, Christopher Haydn-Myer has been authorized by counsel to sign this stipulation on her behalf.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

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