Filed: Dec. 15, 2016
Latest Update: Dec. 15, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II , District Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Daniel G. Bogden, United States Attorney, and Phillip N. Smith, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, counsel for the United States of America, and Vincent Savarese, counsel for Defendant CHANDAN MANANSINGH, that the date for the Government to file a response to the Defendant's Motion to Suppress (Docket #36) be extended for five (5) days. This stipulation is en
Summary: STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II , District Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Daniel G. Bogden, United States Attorney, and Phillip N. Smith, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, counsel for the United States of America, and Vincent Savarese, counsel for Defendant CHANDAN MANANSINGH, that the date for the Government to file a response to the Defendant's Motion to Suppress (Docket #36) be extended for five (5) days. This stipulation is ent..
More
STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II, District Judge.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Daniel G. Bogden, United States Attorney, and Phillip N. Smith, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, counsel for the United States of America, and Vincent Savarese, counsel for Defendant CHANDAN MANANSINGH, that the date for the Government to file a response to the Defendant's Motion to Suppress (Docket #36) be extended for five (5) days.
This stipulation is entered for the following reasons:
1. The Defendant's Motion was filed and served on November 4, 2016.
2. A hearing regarding a stipulation for extension of time was held on November 23, 2016. Pursuant to the Court's Order, the Government's response deadline is December 7, 2016.
4. Counsel for the Government is presently in trial in the matter of United States v. Kenneth Earl Brooks, 2:16-cr-00193-KJD-VCF. The trial, along with pre-trial preparation, has taken away from time needed to research and prepare a response to the Defendant's Motion.
5. The Defendant is incarcerated, but he does not object to a brief continuance of the Government's response deadline.
6. The trial in this matter is presently set for February 6, 2017.
7. The additional time requested herein is not sought for purposes of delay, but merely to allow the Government adequate time to prepare a response to the Defendant's Motion, taking into account due diligence.
8. Additionally, denial of this request for continuance could result in a miscarriage of justice.
9. This is the second stipulation filed herein to continue the Government's response deadline.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the pending Stipulation of counsel, and good cause appearing therefore, the Court finds that:
3. The Defendant's Motion was filed and served on November 4, 2016.
4. A hearing regarding a stipulation for extension of time was held on November 23, 2016. Pursuant to the Court's Order, the Government's response deadline is December 7, 2016.
4. Counsel for the Government is presently in trial in the matter of United States v. Kenneth Earl Brooks, 2:16-cr-00193-KJD-VCF. The trial, along with pre-trial preparation, has taken away from time needed to research and prepare a response to the Defendant's Motion.
5. The Defendant is incarcerated, but he does not object to a brief continuance of the Government's response deadline.
6. The trial in this matter is presently set for February 6, 2017.
7. The additional time requested herein is not sought for purposes of delay, but merely to allow the Government adequate time to prepare a response to the Defendant's Motion, taking into account due diligence.
8. Additionally, denial of this request for continuance could result in a miscarriage of justice.
9. This is the second stipulation filed herein to continue the Government's response deadline.
For all of the above-stated reasons, the ends of justice would best be served by a continuance of the motion response deadline.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The additional time requested herein is not sought for purposes of delay, but merely to allow the Government adequate time to research and prepare a response to the Defendant's Motion, taking into account due diligence. The failure to grant said continuance would likely result in a miscarriage of justice.
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, that the previously-scheduled response deadline for the Government to respond to the Defendant's Motion to Suppress is extended until December 12, 2016 2016. The Defendant's optional reply will be due ten (10) days thereafter.
