Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

USA v. Dushenko, 2:15 CR 197 MCE. (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20171215943 Visitors: 32
Filed: Dec. 13, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 13, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERNCE GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. , Senior District Judge . It is hereby stipulated between the parties, Paul Hemesath, Assistant United States Attorney, Ben Galloway, attorney for Marina Dushenko, and Michael Chastaine, attorney for Stanislov Carpenco, that the status conference date of Friday, December 15. 2017 should be continued until Friday, February 2, 2018. The continuance is necessary in that the defense needs additional time to review the dis
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERNCE

It is hereby stipulated between the parties, Paul Hemesath, Assistant United States Attorney, Ben Galloway, attorney for Marina Dushenko, and Michael Chastaine, attorney for Stanislov Carpenco, that the status conference date of Friday, December 15. 2017 should be continued until Friday, February 2, 2018. The continuance is necessary in that the defense needs additional time to review the discovery (including new developments in the case), complete investigation and go over it with their respective clients.

IT IS STIPULATED that the period of time from the December 15, 2017 up to and including February 2, 2018 be excluded in computing the time within which the trial must commence under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7) and Local Code T4, for ongoing preparation of counsel. It is further stipulated that the need for a continuance and continued counsel preparation outweighs the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

ORDER

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, in that it is the stipulation of the parties:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the status conference scheduled for Friday, December 15, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. be continued to Friday, February 2, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. and that the period from December 15, 2017 to February 2, 2018 is excludable from calculation under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(A) and local rule T4. Further, that the need for a continuance and continued counsel preparation outweighs the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

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