STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE

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

Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant John Dial, by and through his counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on May 22, 2014.

2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until June 19, 2014, and to exclude time between May 22, 2014 and June 19, 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 initial discovery. However, Mr. Dial appears to have other related matters in other jurisdictions. The US Attorney is in the process of producing the discovery related to these other charges. Once this discovery is provided, counsel for defendant will need time to review that discovery with him. Counsel are also trying to fashion a global resolution for all matters. The government and defense have been in discussions regarding a global resolution. However, to properly advise the client of the proposed resolution, counsel must review this new discovery and discuss it with the client. This continuance will allow the defense an adequate opportunity to discuss the offer and conclude any necessary investigation or negotiations, once the discovery is received. Counsel believes the discovery will be produced this week.

b. Counsel for defendant is currently in trial in People v. Lopez, Sacramento Superior Court case number 12F06388. This trial is expected to last until June 12, 2014. Consequently, counsel is unavailable for the May 22, 2014 court appearance. In addition, counsel needs the additional time to visit Mr. Dial as he is now housed in Grass Valley.

c. Counsel for defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny her 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 May 22, 2014 to June 19, 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

The status conference is rescheduled for June 19, 2014, at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 7. Time under the Speedy Trial Act is excluded through that date pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 3161(h)(7)(A), B(iv), and Local Code T4. For the reasons stated above, the Court finds the ends of justice to be served by a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.