Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Esquivel-Cornejo, 2:16-CR-206-MCE. (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20170504a86 Visitors: 16
Filed: May 03, 2017
Latest Update: May 03, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr. , District Judge . It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between plaintiff United States of America, on the one hand, and defendants Marco Antonio Esquivel-Cornejo, Jesus Esquivel-Cornejo, and Oliver Lopez Alvarado, on the other hand, through their respective attorneys, that the presently set May 4, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., status conference hearing shall be continued by
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between plaintiff United States of America, on the one hand, and defendants Marco Antonio Esquivel-Cornejo, Jesus Esquivel-Cornejo, and Oliver Lopez Alvarado, on the other hand, through their respective attorneys, that the presently set May 4, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., status conference hearing shall be continued by the Court to June 29, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., to: (1) allow respective counsel for the each defendant to review discovery produced by the United States, conduct their independent investigation into the facts and applicable law, interview witnesses, discuss with their client potential pretrial resolution, and otherwise prepare their client's defense. The parties represent that they have made a new recent discovery request to the United States and the United States is attempting to determine whether the information defendants request exists and/or is in the control, possession, or custody of the United States or its agents.

The parties agree and request that the Court find that: (1) the failure to grant this requested continuance would deny respective counsel for each defendant reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence; and (2) the ends of justice served by continuing the case as requested outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a trial in a speedy trial.

The parties further agree and request that the Court order for the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq., within which the trial of this case must commence, the time period from the date of this stipulation, May 2, 2017, to and including the June 29, 2017, status conference hearing, shall be excluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and B(iv) and Local Code T4 to allow respective counsel for each defendant reasonable time necessary for effective preparation of their client's defenses.

ORDER

The Court, having received, read, and considered the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefrom, adopts the stipulation of the parties in its entirety as its Order. It is hereby ORDERED that the presently set May 4, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., status conference hearing shall be continued to June 29, 2017, at 10:00 a.m.

Based on the representations of the parties in their stipulation, the Court finds that the failure to grant this requested continuance would deny respective counsel for each defendant reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. It further orders that for the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq., within which the trial of this case must commence, the time period from the date of this stipulation, May 2, 2017, to and including the June 29, 2017, status conference hearing, shall be excluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and B(iv) and Local Code T4 to allow respective counsel for each defendant reasonable time necessary for effective preparation of their client's defenses.

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