U.S. v. Sheikh, 2:18-cr-00119-WBS. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190117f50
Visitors: 1
Filed: Jan. 16, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 16, 2019
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE AND MOTION HEARING AND REQUEST TO RESET BRIEFING SCHEDULE WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . The United States of America through its undersigned counsel, William Nolan and David Reese, Trial Attorneys with the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, together with Thomas A. Johnson, counsel for defendant, Firdos Sheikh, hereby stipulate the following: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for Status Conference and Motion H
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE AND MOTION HEARING AND REQUEST TO RESET BRIEFING SCHEDULE WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . The United States of America through its undersigned counsel, William Nolan and David Reese, Trial Attorneys with the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, together with Thomas A. Johnson, counsel for defendant, Firdos Sheikh, hereby stipulate the following: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for Status Conference and Motion He..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE AND MOTION HEARING AND REQUEST TO RESET BRIEFING SCHEDULE
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.
The United States of America through its undersigned counsel, William Nolan and David Reese, Trial Attorneys with the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, together with Thomas A. Johnson, counsel for defendant, Firdos Sheikh, hereby stipulate the following:
1. By previous order, this matter was set for Status Conference and Motion Hearing on March 4, 2019.
2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the Status Conference and Motion Hearing to May 20, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. and to exclude time between March 4, 2019, and May 20, 2019, under the Local Code T-4 (to allow defense counsel time to prepare). The parties have also agreed to the following briefing schedule: Defendants' motion is to be filed by April 8, 2019, oppositions by April 29, 2019, and a reply, if any, by May 13, 2019.
3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request the Court find the following:
a. A continuance is requested because counsel for the defendant needs additional time to review the discovery, conduct investigation, and file any appropriate motions.
b. Counsel for defendant believes the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
c. The Government does not object to the continuance.
d. Based on the above-stated findings, the ends of justice served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act.
e. For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 United States Code Section 3161(h)(7)(A) within which trial must commence, the time period of March 4, 2019, to May 20, 2019, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 United States Code Section 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv), corresponding to Local Code T-4 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
