U.S. v. MULLER, 2:15-cr-00205-TLN. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20151217a34
Visitors: 11
Filed: Dec. 15, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 15, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER The United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Matthew Segal, Assistant United States Attorney, together with Thomas A. Johnson, counsel for Matthew Muller, hereby stipulate the following: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for Status Conference on December 17, 2015. 2. By this stipulation, Defendant now moves to continue the Status Conference
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER The United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Matthew Segal, Assistant United States Attorney, together with Thomas A. Johnson, counsel for Matthew Muller, hereby stipulate the following: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for Status Conference on December 17, 2015. 2. By this stipulation, Defendant now moves to continue the Status Conference ..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
The United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Matthew Segal, Assistant United States Attorney, together with Thomas A. Johnson, counsel for Matthew Muller, hereby stipulate the following:
1. By previous order, this matter was set for Status Conference on December 17, 2015.
2. By this stipulation, Defendant now moves to continue the Status Conference to January 14, 2016, at 9:30 a.m. and to exclude time between December 17, 2015, and, January 14, 2016, under the Local Code T-4. The request is being made so to allow defense counsel additional time to prepare and review discovery.
3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request the Court find the following:
a. A continuance is requested because all counsel for the defendants need additional time to review the discovery, conduct investigation, and discuss potential resolutions.
b. Counsel for defendants believe 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.
c. The Government does not object to the continuance.
d. 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 defendants in a speedy trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act.
e. 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 December 17, 2015, to January 14, 2016, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 United States Code Section 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(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 ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
