Filed: Sep. 25, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 25, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL MOTIONS DEADLINE (11 th REQUEST) JENNIFER A. DORSEY , District Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between PETER AKARAGIAN, Defendant, by and through his counsel ANTHONY P. SGRO, ESQ., and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by and through J. GREGORY DAMM, Assistant United States Attorney, and RAMON DESAGE, by and through, RICHARD B. HERMAN, ESQ., and GARY PARKINSON, by and through THOMAS F. PITARO, ESQ., that the October 1, 2015, Motions deadline date be co
Summary: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL MOTIONS DEADLINE (11 th REQUEST) JENNIFER A. DORSEY , District Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between PETER AKARAGIAN, Defendant, by and through his counsel ANTHONY P. SGRO, ESQ., and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by and through J. GREGORY DAMM, Assistant United States Attorney, and RAMON DESAGE, by and through, RICHARD B. HERMAN, ESQ., and GARY PARKINSON, by and through THOMAS F. PITARO, ESQ., that the October 1, 2015, Motions deadline date be con..
More
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL MOTIONS DEADLINE (11th REQUEST)
JENNIFER A. DORSEY, District Judge.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between PETER AKARAGIAN, Defendant, by and through his counsel ANTHONY P. SGRO, ESQ., and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by and through J. GREGORY DAMM, Assistant United States Attorney, and RAMON DESAGE, by and through, RICHARD B. HERMAN, ESQ., and GARY PARKINSON, by and through THOMAS F. PITARO, ESQ., that the October 1, 2015, Motions deadline date be continued thirty (30) days, or to a time convenient to this Honorable Court.
This stipulation is entered into based on the following
1. Counsel for Defendant Peter Akaragian recently had a change in personnel. Specifically, the associate primarily responsible for this case is no longer with the firm.
2. Counsel for Defendant Akaragian has spoken with AUSA Gregory Damm, and the Government has no objection to the requested continuance.
3. Counsel has spoken to the co-defendants' counsel and the co-defendants have no objection to the continuance.
4. Failure to grant this request for continuance would deny the Defendant the opportunity to properly present his case at trial and the opportunity to negotiate a resolution.
5. Additionally, continuance of the current Pre-Trial Motions date is appropriate in order to promote the goals set forth under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), which provides that a court may grant a continuance on the basis of finding that the "ends of justice" served by a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.
6. Additionally, denial of this request for continuance would result in a miscarriage of justice.
7. For all of the above-stated reasons, the ends of justice would be best served by a continuance of the motions deadlines.
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL MOTIONS
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the pending Stipulations of the parties, and good cause appearing therefor, the Court finds that:
1. Counsel for Defendant Peter Akaragian recently had a change in personnel. Specifically, the associate primarily responsible for this case is no longer with the firm.
2. Counsel for Defendant Akaragian has spoken with AUSA Gregory Damm, and the Government has no objection to the requested continuance.
3. Counsel has spoken to the co-defendants' counsel and the co-defendants have no objection to the continuance.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Failure to grant this request for continuance would deny the Defendant the opportunity to properly present his case at trial and the opportunity to negotiate a resolution.
2. Additionally, denial of this request for continuance would result in a miscarriage of justice.
3. For all of the above-stated reasons, the ends of justice would be best served by a continuance of the motions deadlines.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the Pretrial Motions Deadline currently set for October 1, 2015, be continued thirty (30) days to November 1, 2015.
