Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. HERNANDEZ-LUIS, 2:12-cr-00302 MCE. (2012)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20121116825 Visitors: 4
Filed: Nov. 15, 2012
Latest Update: Nov. 15, 2012
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDING TIME PERIODS UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., District Judge. Plaintiff United States of America ("government") and defendant, by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. On October 18, 2012, attorney Daniel M. Karalash, Esq. substituted in as counsel of record for defendant. 2. By prior order, the Court set this matter for status conference to take place on November 16, 2012, an
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDING TIME PERIODS UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., District Judge.

Plaintiff United States of America ("government") and defendant, by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. On October 18, 2012, attorney Daniel M. Karalash, Esq. substituted in as counsel of record for defendant.

2. By prior order, the Court set this matter for status conference to take place on November 16, 2012, and excluded time under the Speedy Trial Act through November 16, 2012, pursuant to Excludable Delay Code ("Local Code") T4.

3. By this stipulation, defendant moves to continue the status conference until January 3, 2013, and to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to Local Code T4. The government does not oppose this request.

4. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find, as follows:

a. On October 18, 2012, Daniel M. Karalash, Esq. substituted in as counsel of record for defendant.

b. Mr. Karalash intends to file a petition for asylum and for relief under the U.N. Convention Against Torture ("CAT") on behalf of defendant, and subsequently file a motion to stay or otherwise toll the criminal litigation pending before this Court.

c. Defendant's counsel believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny him the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

d. The government does not object to the continuance.

e. Based on the above-stated findings, the ends of justice served by continuing the case as requested outweigh the interest of the public and the defendant in a trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act.

f. For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161 et seq., within which trial must commence, the time period from November 16, 2012, through and including January 3, 2013, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h) (7) (A), B(iv) [Local Code T4], because it results from a continuance granted by the Court at defendant's request on the basis of the Court's finding that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

5. Nothing in this stipulation and order shall preclude a finding that other provisions of the Speedy Trial Act dictate that additional time periods are excludable from the period within which a trial must commence.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED.

The parties' stipulation, including the proposed findings, is HEREBY APPROVED. The status conference, currently scheduled for November 16, 2012, is continued to January 3, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 7. The time period through January 3, 2013, is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to Local Code T4.

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