Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Amaya, 14-CR-0072 MCE. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20140416f52 Visitors: 12
Filed: Apr. 15, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 15, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge. Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and the Defendant, by and through each counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. Counsel for the United States, Jill Thomas, is currently in the process of providing discovery to Defense counsel Olaf W. Hedberg. Attorney Hedberg has just received the first set of discovery consisting of four discs containing reports and audio recordings and n
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge.

Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and the Defendant, by and through each counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. Counsel for the United States, Jill Thomas, is currently in the process of providing discovery to Defense counsel Olaf W. Hedberg. Attorney Hedberg has just received the first set of discovery consisting of four discs containing reports and audio recordings and needs time to review it with his client.

2. By this stipulation, the defendant now move to continue the status conference until June 12, 2014, and to exclude time between April 17, 2014, and June 12, 2014, under Local Code T4. Plaintiff does not oppose this request.

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

a. The government has provided discovery associated with this case soon.

b. Counsel for the defendant desires 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 and to discuss potential resolutions with his client.

c. Counsel for the defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny them 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 April 17, 2014, to June 12, 2014, 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.

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

ORDER

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, it is hereby ordered that the April 17, 2014 status conference be continued to June 12, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. I find that the ends of justice warrant an exclusion of time and that the defendant's need for continuity of counsel and reasonable time for effective preparation exceeds the public interest in a trial within 70 days. THEREFORE IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that time be excluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h) (7) (B) (ii) and Local Code T4 from the date of this order to June 12, 2014.

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