Filed: Aug. 15, 2016
Latest Update: Aug. 15, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE AND TO EXCLUDE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . STIPULATION 1. By previous order, this matter was set for a status conference on August 18, 2016. 2. By this stipulation, the parties, through their undersigned counsel, now move to continue the status conference until September 22, 2016, at 9:30 a.m., and to exclude time between August 18, 2016, and September 22, 2016, under Local Code T4. 3.
Summary: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE AND TO EXCLUDE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . STIPULATION 1. By previous order, this matter was set for a status conference on August 18, 2016. 2. By this stipulation, the parties, through their undersigned counsel, now move to continue the status conference until September 22, 2016, at 9:30 a.m., and to exclude time between August 18, 2016, and September 22, 2016, under Local Code T4. 3. ..
More
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE AND TO EXCLUDE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
STIPULATION
1. By previous order, this matter was set for a status conference on August 18, 2016.
2. By this stipulation, the parties, through their undersigned counsel, now move to continue the status conference until September 22, 2016, at 9:30 a.m., and to exclude time between August 18, 2016, and September 22, 2016, under Local Code T4.
3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:
a) Discovery associated with this case includes investigative reports and related documents, as well as voluminous cell phone data.
b) Counsel for defendant desires additional time to consult with his client, to review the current charges, to conduct investigation and research related to the charges, to review and copy discovery for this matter, to discuss potential resolution with his client, and to otherwise prepare for trial.
c) Counsel for defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
d) The government does not object to the continuance.
e) 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.
f) 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 18, 2016 to September 22, 2016, 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 defendants' 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.
FINDINGS AND ORDER
IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED.
