welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
  1. Home
  2. Case Laws
  3. District Court, E.D. California
  4. 2019
  5. U.S. v. Sanford, 2:18-CR-0004 DB. (2019)

U.S. v. Sanford, 2:18-CR-0004 DB. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20190116a19 Visitors: 8
Filed: Jan. 15, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 15, 2019
Summary: STIPULATION CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDABLE TIME; PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER DEBORAH BARNES , Magistrate Judge . STIPULATION 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on December 18, 2018. 2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference for a change of plea until January 29, 2019, and to exclude time between December 18, 2019 and January 29, 2019, under Local Code T4. 3. The parties agree and stipulate, and requ
More

STIPULATION CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDABLE TIME; PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER

STIPULATION

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on December 18, 2018. 2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference for a change of plea until January 29, 2019, and to exclude time between December 18, 2019 and January 29, 2019, under Local Code T4. 3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following: a. The government has provided a large amount of discovery, including a hard drive with extensive video footage. b. The parties believe they have reached a settlement in this case. However, defense counsel for Ms. Sanford is unavailable to handle the change of plea on December 18, `, as she is currently in trial in People v. Garcia, in Sacramento Superior Court case number 15F06936. c. January 29, 2019, is the first available date for all parties. d. As counsel needs additional time to ensure a thorough review of the plea agreement has occurred with her client. Counsel for defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. e. The government does not object to the continuance. f. Based upon the above-stated facts, 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. g. 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 December 18, 2018, to January 29, 2019, 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 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 defendant in a speedy trial. 4. Nothing in this stipulation and order shall preclude a finding that other 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.

FINDINGS AND ORDER

IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED.
Source:  Leagle
Lawyers who claimed
No Lawyers
Citations
2:18-CR-0004 DB.
Counsels
  • Kelly Babineau
  • Etan Zaitsu
  • Robert Artuz
  • Eric Chang
Similar Cases

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