Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Brayton, CR-S-13-406 GEB. (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20170501j19 Visitors: 14
Filed: Apr. 27, 2017
Latest Update: Apr. 27, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; [PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr. , District Judge . The United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Timothy H. Delgado, Assistant United States Attorney, together with counsel for defendant Shane Brayton, John R. Manning, Esq., hereby stipulate the following: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status conference on April 28, 2017. 2. By this stipulation, the defendant now mov
More

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

The United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Timothy H. Delgado, Assistant United States Attorney, together with counsel for defendant Shane Brayton, John R. Manning, Esq., hereby stipulate the following:

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status conference on April 28, 2017.

2. By this stipulation, the defendant now moves to continue the status conference until May 26, 2017 and to exclude time between April 28, 2017 and May 26, 2017 under the Local CodeT-4 (to allow defense counsel time to prepare).

3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request the Court find the following:

a. This case includes over 200 pages of discovery and a video. b. Counsel for the defendant needs additional time to review the proposed plea agreement and discuss the relevant USSG calculations and sentencing factors. Additionally, counsel for Mr. Brayton is reviewing the case law related to filing a suppression motion on behalf of Mr. Brayton. To that end, counsel for Mr. Brayton will be seeking additional discovery from the government via informal discovery request. The government for its part will need time to respond to the afore mentioned request. c. Counsel for the defendant believes the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. d. The Government does not object to the continuance. e. Based on the above-stated findings, the ends of justice served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act. f. For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 United States Code Section 3161(h)(7)(A) within which trial must commence, the time period of April 28, 2017 to May 26, 2017, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 United States Code Section 3161(h)(7)(A) ) and (B)(ii) and (iv), corresponding to Local Code T-4 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.

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