Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Gilmore, CR 18-0040 JST. (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20180301l03 Visitors: 14
Filed: Feb. 27, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 27, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER EXCLUDING TIME FROM FEBRUARY 23, 2018, THROUGH MARCH 9, 2018 JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . Plaintiff United States of America and defendant Wallace Lee Gilmore, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. On February 23, 2018, the parties appeared before the Honorable Jon S. Tigar for the first District Court appearance in this case. The parties reported to the Court that the government has provided discovery in this
More

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER EXCLUDING TIME FROM FEBRUARY 23, 2018, THROUGH MARCH 9, 2018

Plaintiff United States of America and defendant Wallace Lee Gilmore, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. On February 23, 2018, the parties appeared before the Honorable Jon S. Tigar for the first District Court appearance in this case. The parties reported to the Court that the government has provided discovery in this case at that hearing. Therefore, the parties asked the Court to schedule a second status conference on March 9, 2018, to provide the defense with time to review the discovery and discuss the case going forward.

2. Pursuant to the request of the parties, the Court set the matter for a status conference to occur on March 9, 2018, at 9:30 a.m.

3. At the hearing on February 23, 2018, the parties jointly stipulated to exclude the time from February 23, 2018, through March 9, 2018, from the time in which the defendant must be brought to trial pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq. As mentioned above, the government produced discovery in this case on February 23, 2018, and the defense needs time to review the discovery and discuss the case. Therefore, the parties agree that the time period from February 23, 2018, through March 9, 2018, inclusive, should be excluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (h)(7)(B)(iv) on the basis that the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and defendant in a speedy trial, and failing to exclude this time would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

Based upon the representations of counsel and for good cause shown, the Court finds that failing to exclude the time from February 23, 2018, through March 9, 2018, would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The Court further finds that the ends of justice served by excluding the time from February 23, 2018, through March 9, 2018, from computation under the Speedy Trial Act outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the matter is set before this Court on March 9, 2018, at 9:30 a.m. for a status conference, and that the time from February 23, 2018, through March 9, 2018, shall be excluded from computation under the Speedy Trial Act. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv).

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