STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO CONTINUE THE STATUS CONFERENCE FROM MAY 19, 2017 TO JUNE 30, 2017

GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., District Judge.

STIPULATION

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED between the parties and their attorneys, Heiko Coppolla, Assistant United States Attorney, Kenny N. Giffard, attorney for Aleksandr Lastovski, Joseph A. Welch, attorney for Tatyana Shvets, Kelly Babineau, attorney for Andrey Lungu, and Robert M. Wilson, attorney for Aleksandr Maslov, that the status conference date of Friday, May 19, 2017, should be continued to Friday, June 30, 2017. The parties further stipulate as follows:

1. By previous order, the status of the competency proceedings as to defendant Aleksandr Maslov in case number 2:12-CR-083 were set for status conference on May 19, 2017. A status conference in this matter was also set for May 19, 2017.

2. On May 16, 2017, Dr. Samantha Shelton, the evaluator from the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles assigned to the defendant's evaluation, informed the government that she expected to finish her report on the defendant by May 26, 2017.

3. The defendant, Aleksandr Maslov is currently out of custody.

4. Given the release date for Dr. Shelton's report, the parties jointly request that the currently-scheduled status conference of May 19, 2017, be vacated, and that a new status conference be set for June 30, 2017.

5. Moreover, on April 28, 2017, this Court in case number 2:12-CR-083 GEB excluded time under the Speedy Trial Act within which trial must occur through May 19, 2017, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§§ 3161(h)(7)(A), B(iv) [Local Code T4] and 3161(h)(1)(A) [Local Code A]. The parties hereby jointly request that this Court order further time excluded in this matter, 2:12-CR-0322, between the date of this Order and the contemplated June 30, 2017, status conference pursuant to Local Codes T4 and A. First, the discovery in this case is voluminous, and defense counsel continues to prepare for an eventual trial, justifying continued exclusion under Local Code T4. Independently, competency proceedings are underway, as the evaluator is currently compiling her evaluative report on that subject, justifying an exclusion under Local Code A. See United States v. Miranda, 986 F.2d 1283, 1294-85 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that § 4241(a) time limits for competency evaluation do not limit excludable time for competency examinations under § 3161(h)(1)(A), and upholding exclusion of 106 days in which defendant's mental competency evaluation report was under preparation); accord United States v. Daychild, 357 F.3d 1082, 1094 (9th Cir. 2004).

6. The parties further stipulate the continuance is necessary, as counsel are still reviewing discovery, meeting with the respective clients and investigating information as well as researching various possible resolutions.

7. 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 that the time between May 19, 2017 and June 30, 2017 should be excluded from the Speedy Trial calculation pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§§ 3161(h)(7)(A), B(iv) [Local Code T4] and 3161(h)(1)(A) [Local Code A] for defense preparation and the pending competency proceeding, based on the representations of the parties in their stipulation. The parties stipulate that the ends of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. Section 3161(h)(7)(A).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The status conference presently set for May 19, 2017 at 9:00 A.M., is hereby continued to June 30, 2017 at 9:00 A.M., and time under the Speedy Trial Act will be excluded from May 19, 2017 through June 30, 2017 pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§§ 3161(h)(7)(A), B(iv) [Local Code T4] and 3161(h)(1)(A) [Local Code A] for defense preparation and the pending competency proceeding, based on the representations of the parties in their stipulation. The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.