Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. FARRELL, CR. S-12-0076 TLN. (2013)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20130620994 Visitors: 13
Filed: Jun. 19, 2013
Latest Update: Jun. 19, 2013
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDING TIME ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge. Defendants SEAN FARRELL and ETHAN STUART, by and through their attorneys, and plaintiff United States of America, by and through its attorney, hereby stipulate and agree that the status conference of June 20, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., should be continued to September 19, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. The primary basis for this continuance is predicated upon the unavailability of co-counsel, J. Tony Serr
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDING TIME ORDER

TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.

Defendants SEAN FARRELL and ETHAN STUART, by and through their attorneys, and plaintiff United States of America, by and through its attorney, hereby stipulate and agree that the status conference of June 20, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., should be continued to September 19, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.

The primary basis for this continuance is predicated upon the unavailability of co-counsel, J. Tony Serra, to participate in co-defendant Ethan Stuart's status conference set for June 20, 2013 due to an ongoing homicide case in Contra Costa County Superior Court, People vs. Willie Clay II, Case No. 05-091008-3.

For these reasons, the parties respectfully request that the Court continue the status conference date currently set for June 20, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. and set a new status conference date of September 19, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.

The parties agree to exclude time, based on the pendency of the motions, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) & (B)(i) & (iv) and Local Code T4, and the continuity of counsel, such that the ends of justice served by granting such a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial because the failure to grant such a continuance would unreasonably deny the defendant continuity of counsel.

Accordingly, the parties stipulate and agree that time should be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(B)(iv) and Local Code T4. The parties stipulate that the ends of justice are served by the Court excluding such time, so that counsel for each defendant may have reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence and continuity of counsel. The parties further stipulate and agree that time for trial under the Speedy Trial Act be excluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D) & (h)(7)(A) & (B)(iv), Local Codes E and T-4.

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The status conference in this matter set for June 20, 2013 is continued, and a new status conference be set for September 19, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.; and

3. Based upon the representations and stipulation of the parties, the Court finds that the time exclusion under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv) applies and the ends of justice outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. The parties further stipulate and agree that time for trial under the Speedy Trial Act be excluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D) & (h)(7)(A) & (B)(iv), Local Codes E and T-4. Accordingly, time under the Speedy Trial Act shall be excluded from June 20, 2013 up to and including September 19, 2013.

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