Filed: Sep. 03, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 03, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE, AND EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT. GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr. , District Judge . The parties request that the status conference, currently set for September 4, 2015 at 9:00 a.m., be continued to November 13, 2015 at 9:00 a.m., and stipulate that the time beginning September 4, 2015 and extending through November 13, 2015, should be excluded from the calculation of time under the Speedy Trial Act. 18 U.S.C. 3161. Defe
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE, AND EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT. GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr. , District Judge . The parties request that the status conference, currently set for September 4, 2015 at 9:00 a.m., be continued to November 13, 2015 at 9:00 a.m., and stipulate that the time beginning September 4, 2015 and extending through November 13, 2015, should be excluded from the calculation of time under the Speedy Trial Act. 18 U.S.C. 3161. Defen..
More
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE, AND EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT.
GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., District Judge.
The parties request that the status conference, currently set for September 4, 2015 at 9:00 a.m., be continued to November 13, 2015 at 9:00 a.m., and stipulate that the time beginning September 4, 2015 and extending through November 13, 2015, should be excluded from the calculation of time under the Speedy Trial Act. 18 U.S.C. § 3161.
Defense counsel is continuing to review over 2,000 pages of document discovery and photographs that has been provided in the case and requires additional time to review this discovery and for follow up investigation. In addition, defense counsel has located and obtained court documents from out of this district, which has required additional time to review; and, which will be provided to the prosecution for their review. Accordingly, the parties believe that the forgoing justifies an exclusion of time from the calculation of time under the Speedy Trial Act. The additional time is necessary to ensure effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence; and, continuity of counsel. (18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv); Local Code T4). The interests of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. (18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A)).
DAVID W. DRATMAN
Dated: September 2, 2015. By: /s/David W. Dratman
___________________________
DAVID W. DRATMAN
Attorney for Defendant
SATNAM SINGH
Dated: September 2, 2015. BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
By: /s/Nirav K. Desai*
__________________________
NIRAV K. DESAI
Assistant U.S. Attorney
* Signed with permission
ORDER
The Court, having considered the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefrom, adopts the stipulation of the parties in its entirety as its order. Based on the stipulation of the parties, the Court finds that the failure to grant the requested continuance would deny defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court specifically finds that the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the interests of the public and that the time from September 4, 2015 to and including November 13, 2015 shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to Local Code T4 (time for defense counsel to prepare and continuity of counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
