Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Dushenko, 2:15-cr-197 GEB. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20160727b37 Visitors: 5
Filed: Jul. 25, 2016
Latest Update: Jul. 25, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr. , Senior District Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Phillip A. Talbert, Acting U.S. Attorney, through Paul Hemesath, Assistant United States Attorney, attorney for Plaintiff, and Heather Williams, Federal Defender, through Assistant Federal Defender Benjamin D. Galloway, attorney for defendant Marina Dushenko, and Michael Chastaine, attorney for defendant Stanislav Carpenco that the status co
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Phillip A. Talbert, Acting U.S. Attorney, through Paul Hemesath, Assistant United States Attorney, attorney for Plaintiff, and Heather Williams, Federal Defender, through Assistant Federal Defender Benjamin D. Galloway, attorney for defendant Marina Dushenko, and Michael Chastaine, attorney for defendant Stanislav Carpenco that the status conference scheduled for July 29, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., be vacated and the matter continued to this Court's criminal calendar on Friday, September 16, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., for further status conference.

The reasons for this continuance are to allow defense counsel additional time to review discovery with the defendants, to continue investigating the facts of the case, and to negotiate a resolution to this matter.

Based upon the foregoing, the parties agree time under the Speedy Trial Act should be excluded of this order's date through and including September 16, 2016; pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161 (h)(7)(A)and (B)(iv)[reasonable time to prepare] and General Order 479, Local Code T4 based upon continuity of counsel and defense preparation.

Counsel and the defendant also agree that the ends of justice served by the Court granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, the Court, having received, read, and considered the parties' stipulation, and good cause appearing therefrom, adopts the parties' stipulation in its entirety as its order. The Court specifically finds the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court finds the ends of justice are served by granting the requested continuance and outweigh the best interests of the public and defendant in a speedy trial.

The Court orders the time from the date the parties stipulated, up to and including September 16, 2016, shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and(B)(iv) [reasonable time for counsel to prepare] and General Order 479, (Local Code T4). It is further ordered the July 29, 2016 status conference shall be continued until September 16, 2016 at 9:00 a.m.

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