Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. MARSHALL, CR S-2:11-0458 GEB. (2012)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20121130682 Visitors: 3
Filed: Nov. 28, 2012
Latest Update: Nov. 28, 2012
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RESETTING STATUS CONFERENCE, AND EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., Senior District Judge. The United States of America, through its counsels of record, Benjamin B. Wagner, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California, and Michael M. Beckwith, Assistant United States Attorney, defendant Buena Marshall, through his counsel of record, Clyde M. Blackmon, defendant Deborah Loudermilk, through her counsel of record, J
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RESETTING STATUS CONFERENCE, AND EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., Senior District Judge.

The United States of America, through its counsels of record, Benjamin B. Wagner, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California, and Michael M. Beckwith, Assistant United States Attorney, defendant Buena Marshall, through his counsel of record, Clyde M. Blackmon, defendant Deborah Loudermilk, through her counsel of record, James T. Reilly, defendant Reginald Dodson, Sr. through his counsel of record, Dina L. Santos, and Kadesta Harris through her counsel of record, J. Toney, hereby stipulate and agree that the status conference set for November 30, 2012, be continued to January 18, 2013.

The parties need additional time for preparation. Therefore, the parties have agreed and respectfully request that the Court set the date of January 18, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., for the status conference. Accordingly, the parties stipulate that time be excluded pursuant to Local Code T4 — additional time to prepare.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

UPON GOOD CAUSE SHOWN and by stipulation of all parties, it is hereby ordered that the status conference set for November 30, 2012, at 9:00 a.m., be continued to January 18, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., and that the time beginning November 30, 2012, and extending through January 18, 2013, be excluded from the calculation of time under the Speedy Trial Act. The Court finds that the interests of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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