Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. PAYNE, 2:14-CR-00185-LDG-GWF. (2015)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20150217d38 Visitors: 9
Filed: Feb. 13, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 13, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE EVIDENTIARY HEARING GEORGE FOLEY, Jr., Magistrate 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 Heidi A. Ojeda, Assistant Federal Public Defender, counsel for Defendant JAMES ELLIS PAYNE, that the evidentiary hearing for the Defendant's Motion to Suppress (Docket #29), currently scheduled for February 23, 2015,
More

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE EVIDENTIARY HEARING

GEORGE FOLEY, Jr., Magistrate 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 Heidi A. Ojeda, Assistant Federal Public Defender, counsel for Defendant JAMES ELLIS PAYNE, that the evidentiary hearing for the Defendant's Motion to Suppress (Docket #29), currently scheduled for February 23, 2015, at the hour of 9:30 a.m., be vacated and continued to a date and time convenient for this Court.

This stipulation is entered for the following reasons:

1. The Defendant's Motion was filed and served on January 12, 2015. Undersigned counsel for both the Government and the Defendant were preparing for a suppression hearing in the matter of United States v. Charles Cooper, 2:14-cr-228-JAD-CWH, which occurred on January 29, 2015. The Court graciously granted the Government a two-week extension of the response filing deadline.

2. Due to the press of business involved with undersigned counsel for the Government's involvement in United States v. Wei Seng Phua, et al., 2:14-cr-249-APG-PAL, Government counsel has not had adequate time to fully brief the issues contained within the Defendant's Motion to Suppress. Consequently, the parties have submitted a stipulation to allow the Government more time to respond. This necessitates the evidentiary hearing being rescheduled.

3. The Defendant is not in custody, and does not object to the continuance.

4. Denial of this request for continuance of the evidentiary hearing would potentially prejudice both the Defendant and the Government, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

5. Additionally, denial of this request for continuance could result in a miscarriage of justice.

6. This is the first request for a continuance of the evidentiary hearing herein.

ORDER CONTINUING EVIDENTIARY HEARING

ORDER

Based on the pending Stipulation of counsel, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the evidentiary hearing in the above-captioned matter, currently scheduled for February 23, 2015, at the hour of 9:30 a.m., be vacated and continued to Thursday, March 5, 2015 at the hour of 1:30 p.m.

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