Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Al-Jayab, 2:16-cr-008 MCE. (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20170815f55 Visitors: 27
Filed: Aug. 10, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 10, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE AND FILING DEADLINES MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr. , District Judge . By previous order, this matter was set for status conference on August 31, 2017, with CIPA Section 4 pleadings to be filed by September 21, 2017. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Phillip A. Talbert, United States Attorney, through Jill Thomas, Assistant United States Attorney, attorney for Plaintiff, Heather Williams, Federal Defender, through Assistant Federal Defende
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE AND FILING DEADLINES

By previous order, this matter was set for status conference on August 31, 2017, with CIPA Section 4 pleadings to be filed by September 21, 2017.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Phillip A. Talbert, United States Attorney, through Jill Thomas, Assistant United States Attorney, attorney for Plaintiff, Heather Williams, Federal Defender, through Assistant Federal Defender Benjamin D. Galloway, attorneys for Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab, that the status conference scheduled for August 31, 2017 be vacated and continued to September 28, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. The Government will file its first ex parte CIPA Section 4 motion by October 19, 2017. The defendant may file any ex parte statements of defense or motions to challenge the Government's ex parte CIPA Section 4 motion by October 19, 2017.

The parties further agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:

a) The government has represented that the discovery associated with this case includes investigative reports and other documents. To date the United States has produced approximately 284,000 pages of unclassified discovery directly to defense counsel for review, with at least an additional 123,000 pages to follow. The government has also produced a voluminous amount of classified discovery to defense counsel, with much more to follow.

b) Counsel for defendant desires additional time to consult with his client, review the current charges, to conduct investigation and research related to the charges, to review discovery for this matter, to prepare pretrial motions, and to otherwise prepare for trial.

c) Counsel for defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny him the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

d) 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.

e) 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 August 9, 2017 to September 28, 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.

The Court has previously found this matter to be complex within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(b)(ii) [Local Code T-2]. The parties stipulate that exclusion of time continues to be appropriate under Local Code T-2.

Additionally, the defendant is pending trial on other charges in the Northern District of Illinois and this Court has previously excluded time on this basis pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(B) [Local Code M]. The parties stipulate that exclusion of time continues to be appropriate under Local Code M.

ORDER

The Court, having received, read, and considered the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefrom, adopts the stipulation of the parties in its entirety as its order. It specifically finds that the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court further finds that the ends of justice to be served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and defendant in a speedy trial.

The Court orders that the time from the date of the parties stipulation, up to and including August 31, 2017, shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) [reasonable time for counsel to prepare] (Local Code T-4); for complexity under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii) and (Local Code T-2); and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(B) [Local Code M]. It is further ordered that the August 31, 2017 status conference shall be continued until September 28, 2017, at 10:00 a.m.

The Court also orders that that the Government will file its first ex parte CIPA Section 4 Motion by October 19, 2017. The defendant may file any ex parte statements of defense or motions to challenge the Government's ex parte CIPA Section 4 motions by October 19, 2017.

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