Filed: Aug. 21, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 21, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE PRELIMINARY HEARING CARL W. HOFFMAN , Magistrate Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between STEVEN W. MYHRE, Acting United States Attorney, and Alexandra Michael., Assistant United States Attorney, counsel for the United States of America, Thomas David Boley, Esq., counsel for Defendant JOSE LUIS MONTOYA and Brian Smith, Esq., counsel for Defendant ASHOK KUMAR SEHDEV, that the preliminary hearing for the above-captioned matter, currently scheduled fo
Summary: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE PRELIMINARY HEARING CARL W. HOFFMAN , Magistrate Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between STEVEN W. MYHRE, Acting United States Attorney, and Alexandra Michael., Assistant United States Attorney, counsel for the United States of America, Thomas David Boley, Esq., counsel for Defendant JOSE LUIS MONTOYA and Brian Smith, Esq., counsel for Defendant ASHOK KUMAR SEHDEV, that the preliminary hearing for the above-captioned matter, currently scheduled for..
More
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE PRELIMINARY HEARING
CARL W. HOFFMAN, Magistrate Judge.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between STEVEN W. MYHRE, Acting United States Attorney, and Alexandra Michael., Assistant United States Attorney, counsel for the United States of America, Thomas David Boley, Esq., counsel for Defendant JOSE LUIS MONTOYA and Brian Smith, Esq., counsel for Defendant ASHOK KUMAR SEHDEV, that the preliminary hearing for the above-captioned matter, currently scheduled for August 21, 2017, at the hour of 4:00 p.m., be vacated and continued to a date and time convenient for this Court, but in no event earlier than sixty (60
This stipulation is entered for the following reasons
1. Joshua AlDabbagh, Esq., counsel for Defendant JOSE LUIS MONTOYA, was recently retained and needs additional time to consult with his client and prepare.
2. The parties are still attempting to resolve this matter short of an Indictment.
3. Both Defendants are in custody and they do not object to the continuance.
4. The parties all agree to the continuance.
5. Denial of this request for continuance of the preliminary hearing would potentially prejudice both the Defendant and the Government and unnecessarily consume this Court's valuable resources, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
6. Additionally, denial of this request for continuance could result in a miscarriage of justice.
7. The additional time requested by this stipulation is excludable in computing the time within which the defendant must be indicted and the trial herein must commence pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(b) and 361 (h)(8)(A), considering the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(i) and (iv).
8. This is the first request for a continuance of the preliminary hearing herein.
ORDER CONTINUING PRELIMINARY HEARING
Based on the pending Stipulation of counsel, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the preliminary hearing in the above-captioned matter, currently scheduled for August 21, 2017, at the hour of 4:00 p.m., be vacated and continued to October 30, 2017 at the hour of 4:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m.
