Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. HERNANDEZ, 1:17-MJ-00185-EPG. (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20171107572 Visitors: 25
Filed: Nov. 06, 2017
Latest Update: Nov. 06, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE HEARING OF NOVEMBER 6, 2017 SHEILA K. OBERTO , Magistrate Judge . The parties herein JOSE ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ, by and through counsel Nicholas F. Reyes, and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by and through AUSA Kimberly Sanchez hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By this stipulation, defendant and the government now move to continue the status conference re: attorney conflict of interest, scheduled for Defendant Jose Alejandro Hernandez on November 6, 2017
More

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE HEARING OF NOVEMBER 6, 2017

The parties herein JOSE ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ, by and through counsel Nicholas F. Reyes, and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by and through AUSA Kimberly Sanchez hereby stipulate as follows:

1. By this stipulation, defendant and the government now move to continue the status conference re: attorney conflict of interest, scheduled for Defendant Jose Alejandro Hernandez on November 6, 2017 to November 13, 2017, and to exclude time between November 6, 2017 and November 13, 2017, under Local Code T4.

2. Defendant already has a preliminary hearing scheduled in this matter for November 13, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. before the Honorable Judge Boone.

3. 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 between November 6, 2017 to November 13, 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.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

IT IS SO 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