Filed: Jul. 18, 2017
Latest Update: Jul. 18, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . The United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Owen Roth, Assistant United States Attorney, together with counsel for defendant Salvador Guzman-Juarez, Clemente M. Jimenez, Esq., counsel for defendant Dolores Castorena, Michael D. Long, Esq., counsel for defendant Pedro Nolasco-Sanchez, Dina L. Santos, Esq., counsel for defendant Fidel Nolasco-Sanchez, To
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . The United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Owen Roth, Assistant United States Attorney, together with counsel for defendant Salvador Guzman-Juarez, Clemente M. Jimenez, Esq., counsel for defendant Dolores Castorena, Michael D. Long, Esq., counsel for defendant Pedro Nolasco-Sanchez, Dina L. Santos, Esq., counsel for defendant Fidel Nolasco-Sanchez, Ton..
More
STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
The United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Owen Roth, Assistant United States Attorney, together with counsel for defendant Salvador Guzman-Juarez, Clemente M. Jimenez, Esq., counsel for defendant Dolores Castorena, Michael D. Long, Esq., counsel for defendant Pedro Nolasco-Sanchez, Dina L. Santos, Esq., counsel for defendant Fidel Nolasco-Sanchez, Toni L. White, Esq., counsel for defendant Zenon Nolasco-Sanchez, John R. Manning, Esq., and counsel for defendant Domingo Nolasco-Sanchez, Kelly Babineau, Esq., hereby stipulate the following:
1. By previous order, this matter was set for status conference on July 20, 2017.
2. By this stipulation, the defendants now move to continue the status conference until August 31, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., and to exclude time between July 20, 2017 and August 31, 2017 under the Local Code T-4 (to allow defense counsel time to prepare). Counsel for the Nolasco-Sanchez defendants anticipate either pleading guilty or setting the matter for trial at the August 31, 2017 court date.
3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request the Court find the following:
a. The government has produced over 200 pages of discovery to each defendant. Additionally, the Government has completed the search of the phones and does not have results to produce, however, the government will make available the contents of the phones to any defendant who wants to review them.
b. Counsel for the defendants need additional time to review the discovery, conduct investigation, interview potential witnesses, and meet with their clients to review relevant guideline sections. (Ms. Babineau was appointed to this matter on May 12, 2017.) Additionally, counsel for the defendants are having on-going resolution discussions with their respective clients. Three defendants have received plea agreements from the government; one defendant has received a written offer; and, the remaining two defendants, through their attorney's, are discussing resolution with the government.
c. Counsel for the defendants believe 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.
d. The government does not object to the continuance.
e. 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.
f. 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 July 20, 2017, to August 31, 2017, 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 the defendants' 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 defendants in a speedy trial.
4. Nothing in this stipulation and order shall preclude a finding that provision 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
IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED.
