Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Thompson, 2:17-mj-00947-PAL. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20180509f35 Visitors: 6
Filed: May 08, 2018
Latest Update: May 08, 2018
Summary: Stipulation to Continue the Preliminary Hearing (Fifth Request) PEGGY A. LEEN , Magistrate Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between DAYLE ELIESON, United States Attorney, and CRISTINA D. SILVA, Assistant United States Attorney, counsel for the United States of America, and Nicholas Wooldridge, Esq., counsel for Defendant BOBBY THOMPSON, and Dennis Matthew Lay, Esq., counsel for defendant RANDY HUMPHREY, that the preliminary hearing date in the above-captioned matter, curre
More

Stipulation to Continue the Preliminary Hearing (Fifth Request)

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between DAYLE ELIESON, United States Attorney, and CRISTINA D. SILVA, Assistant United States Attorney, counsel for the United States of America, and Nicholas Wooldridge, Esq., counsel for Defendant BOBBY THOMPSON, and Dennis Matthew Lay, Esq., counsel for defendant RANDY HUMPHREY, that the preliminary hearing date in the above-captioned matter, currently scheduled for May 4, 2018, at 4:00 pm, be vacated and continued for forty-five (45) days, to a date and time to be set by this Honorable Court.

This stipulation is entered into for the following reasons:

1. Defendant Humphrey agreed to enter into a formal plea agreement with the United States. However, since making that agreement he has filed a motion for a new attorney. As a result, that issue must be resolved before (and if) a formal change of plea is to take place.

2. Defendant Thompson has been presented a written, formal plea agreement. The Defendant and his counsel need additional time to review the plea agreement and its potential implications.

3. All parties agree to the continuance.

4. The defendants are currently detained pending trial but do not object to a continuance.

5. Denial of this request for continuance could result in a miscarriage of justice.

6. The additional time requested herein is not sought for purposes of delay, but to allow for Defendant Humphrey to enter his change of plea, and Defendnat Thompson to potentially resolve the case pre-indictment.

7. The additional time requested by this stipulation, is allowed, with the defendants' consent under the Federal Rules of Procedure 5.1(d).

8. This is the fifth request for a continuation of the preliminary hearing for both Defendants.

ORDER

Based on the pending Stipulation of counsel, and good cause appearing therefore, the Court finds that:

This stipulation is entered into for the following reasons:

1. Defendant Humphrey agreed to enter into a formal plea agreement with the United States. However, since making that agreement he has filed a motion for a new attorney. As a result, that issue must be resolved before (and if) a formal change of plea is to take place.

2. Defendant Thompson has been presented a written, formal plea agreement. The Defendant and his counsel need additional time to review the plea agreement and its potential implications.

3. All parties agree to the continuance.

4. The defendants are currently detained pending trial but do not object to a continuance.

5. Denial of this request for continuance could result in a miscarriage of justice.

6. The additional time requested herein is not sought for purposes of delay, but to allow for Defendant Humphrey to enter his change of plea, and Defendnat Thompson to potentially resolve the case pre-indictment.

7. The additional time requested by this stipulation, is allowed, with the defendants' consent under the Federal Rules of Procedure 5.1(d).

8. This is the fifth request for a continuation of the preliminary hearing for both Defendants.

For all of the above-stated reasons, the ends of justice would best be served by a continuance of the preliminary hearing date.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The ends of justice served by granting said continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants, since the failure to grant said continuance would be likely to result in a miscarriage of justice, would deny Defendant Humphrey the opportunity to potenitally plea guilty to a pre-indictment plea offer, for Defendant Thompson to potentially resolve the case pre-indictment, and if the case is not resolved pre-indictment, it further would deny the parties sufficient time and the opportunity within which to be able to effectively and thoroughly prepare for the preliminary hearing, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

The continuance sought herein is allowed, with the defendants' consent, pursuant to Federal Rules of Procedure 5.1(d).

ORDER

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the preliminary hearing currently scheduled for May 4, 2018, at the hour of 4:00 pm, be vacated and continued to June 18, 2018 at the hour of 4:00 p.m.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that NO FURTHER EXTENSION WILL BE ALLOWED.

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