Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Gregory, 2:15-mj-183 CKD. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20150930b53 Visitors: 14
Filed: Sep. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 23, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING AND STATUS OF COUNSEL AND EXCLUDE TIME ALLISON CLAIRE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, United States of America, by and through Assistant United States Attorney MICHELLE RODRIGUEZ and Defendant MELVIN LEE GREGORY, individually and by his counsel of record, Assistant Federal Defender MATTHEW M. SCOBLE, hereby stipulate to continue the Preliminary Hearing and Status of Counsel set for October 2, 2015 to October 27, 2
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING AND STATUS OF COUNSEL AND EXCLUDE TIME

Plaintiff, United States of America, by and through Assistant United States Attorney MICHELLE RODRIGUEZ and Defendant MELVIN LEE GREGORY, individually and by his counsel of record, Assistant Federal Defender MATTHEW M. SCOBLE, hereby stipulate to continue the Preliminary Hearing and Status of Counsel set for October 2, 2015 to October 27, 2015 at 2:00 p.m.

The parties stipulate that the delay is required to allow the defense reasonable time for preparation and review of the evidence, for the government's continuing investigation of the case, and for the parties to evaluate the evidence and consider the possibility of a pre-indictment resolution of the case via an information and an agreed upon plea deal.

The parties further stipulate that the ends of justice served by granting the defendant's request for a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, and that this is an appropriate exclusion of time for defense preparation within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7), (Local Code T4).

ORDER

Finding good cause, the Court orders the preliminary hearing and status of counsel continued to October 27, 2015, at 2:00 p.m., before the Hon. Dale A. Drozd; and, time excluded for the reasons set forth above. The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting the defendant's request for a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

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