Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Tidwell, 2:18-CR-00049-AC. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20180925a21 Visitors: 10
Filed: Sep. 21, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 21, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO VACATE TRIAL CONFIRMATION AND TRIAL DATE AND SET FOR STATUS HEARING ALLISON CLAIRE , Magistrate Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between the parties through their respective counsel, Special Assistant United States Attorney ERIC J. CHANG, Assistant Federal Defender LINDA C. ALLISON attorney for HAROLD TIDWELL, that the Court vacate the current trial hearing conference set for September 24, 2018 at 2:00 p.m., vacate the trial date set for October 22, 2018
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO VACATE TRIAL CONFIRMATION AND TRIAL DATE AND SET FOR STATUS HEARING

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between the parties through their respective counsel, Special Assistant United States Attorney ERIC J. CHANG, Assistant Federal Defender LINDA C. ALLISON attorney for HAROLD TIDWELL, that the Court vacate the current trial hearing conference set for September 24, 2018 at 2:00 p.m., vacate the trial date set for October 22, 2018 at 9:00 a.m, and set a new status hearing for October 29, 2018 at 9:00 a.m.

The parties anticipate resolving the case by October 29, 2018. The continuance is requested for defense preparation. The parties agree that the above reasons constitute good cause for a continuance. The parties also agree that the ends of justice served by granting defendant's request for a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, because defense counsel needs additional time for preparation and investigation. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) (Local Code T4).

Finding good cause, the Court orders the trial confirmation hearing and trial date be vacated and sets a status hearing for October 29, 2018 at 9:00 a.m., before the Hon. Allison Claire; and, excludes time for the reasons set forth above. The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting the defendants' request for a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B) (Local Code T4).

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