Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Dogan, 2:16-CR-00199 GEB. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20190118678 Visitors: 9
Filed: Jan. 17, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 17, 2019
Summary: STIPULATION CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE AND PROPOSED FINDINGS REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; [PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. , Senior District Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the defendants, Kioni Dogan, Gloria Harris, and Lavonda Bailey, by and through their undersigned defense counsel, and the United States of America, by and through its counsel, Christopher Hales, Assistant United States Attorney, that the status conference
More

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

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the defendants, Kioni Dogan, Gloria Harris, and Lavonda Bailey, by and through their undersigned defense counsel, and the United States of America, by and through its counsel, Christopher Hales, Assistant United States Attorney, that the status conference currently set for January 18, 2019 should be continued until February 8, 2019, and to exclude time between November 16, 2018 and January 18, 2019, under Local Code T4. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:

1. The government has provided discovery associated with this case, which is voluminous — i.e., approximately 14,000 pages, plus media materials, to defense counsel. Both counsel for Dogan and Harris were substituted in for original counsel and have not been counsel of record the entire time since the indictment and thus have had more limited time to prepare.

2. Given the volume of discovery, defense counsel for defendants require additional time to review the discovery in this matter, to consult with their respective clients and to conduct any necessary investigation and research related to the charges, to evaluate possible settlement, and to otherwise prepare for trial.

3. Additionally, the parties are conducting plea negotiations which have been delayed because counsel for defendant Harris is currently in trial.

4. Counsel for defendants 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.

5. The government is unopposed to the requested continuance.

6. 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.

7. 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 appearance January 18, 2019 to February 8, 2019, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 3161(h)(7)(A), B(iv)[Local Code T4] because it results from a continuance granted by the Court at counsel's request on the basis of the Court's finding that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 8. 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 ORDERED.

Good cause appearing, the status conference presently set for January 18, 2019, at 9:30 A.M., is continued to February 8, 2019, at 9:30 A.M. Time is excluded pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act and Local Code from January 18, 2019 to February 8, 2019 based on the stipulations set forth above by the parties and adopted by the Court.

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