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. Markis, 2:19-CR-0062 JAM. (2019)

U.S. v. Markis, 2:19-CR-0062 JAM. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20190617771 Visitors: 7
Filed: Jun. 14, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 14, 2019
Summary: STIPULATION CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDABLE TIME; PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . STIPULATION 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on June 18, 2019. 2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until August 27, 2019 at 9:15 a.m., and to exclude time between June 18, 2019 and August 27, 2019, under Local Code T4. 3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court f
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 June 18, 2019. 2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until August 27, 2019 at 9:15 a.m., and to exclude time between June 18, 2019 and August 27, 2019, under Local Code T4. 3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following: a. Counsel for Ms. Markis was just appointed on June 7, 2019 and has not had a chance to review the discovery or meet with the client in person yet. b. Counsel for defendants desire additional time to review and copy discovery, consult with their clients and discuss the discovery with them. c. Counsel for defendants are also finishing investigation and compilation of mitigation materials relevant to possible resolution in this matter. d. Counsel are requesting a continuance to finish researching legal issues, investigation and discussions with clients regarding possible defenses. In addition, counsel are continuing ongoing discussions with the government about possible resolutions in this case. e. Counsel for defendants believe that the 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. f. The government does not object to the continuance. g. 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. h. 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 June 18, 2019, to August 27, 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.

Dated: June 13, 2019 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Paul Hemesath PAUL HEMESATH Assistant U.S. Attorney Dated: June 13, 2019 /s/ Kelly Babineau KELLY BABINEAU Attorney for Carrie Alaine Markis Dated: June 13, 2019 /s/ Todd Leras TODD LERAS Attorney for Andrea Michelle Jordan

FINDINGS AND ORDER

IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED.
Source:  Leagle
Lawyers who claimed
No Lawyers
Citations
2:19-CR-0062 JAM.
Counsels
  • Kelly Babineau
  • Todd David Leras
  • Amanda Beck
  • Paul Andrew Hemesath
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