Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. BROCK, 2:12-cr-00258 MCE. (2012)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20121207639 Visitors: 13
Filed: Dec. 06, 2012
Latest Update: Dec. 06, 2012
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., District Judge. Defendant William Brock, IV, by and through his counsel of record, and plaintiff, by and through its counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status conference on December 7, 2012. 2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until January 24, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., and to exclude
More

STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., District Judge.

Defendant William Brock, IV, by and through his counsel of record, and plaintiff, by and through its counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status conference on December 7, 2012.

2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until January 24, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., and to exclude time between December 7, 2012 and January 24, 2013 under Local Code T4. The United States does not oppose this request.

3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:

a. Discovery is still ongoing, specifically, search warrants and/or court orders, including the underlying affidavits, issued by the Sacramento County Superior Court, and the State of Illinois (Will County), without which defense counsel is unable to proceed with the setting of motions; trial setting; and meaningful settlement discussion.

b. Mr. Brock's counsel recently submitted an application for subpoenas duces tecum (pursuant to Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure).

c. Government counsel recently obtained items previously requested from the State of Illinois, and is working with defense counsel vis-a-vis the Sacramento Superior Court material.

d. Counsel for defendant Brock believes that the failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny her the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

e. The United States does not object to the continuance, and all parties are in agreement.

f. 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.

g. For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act (18 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq.), within which the trial must commence, the time period of December 7, 2012 to January 24, 2013, inclusive, 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 the 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.

4. 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 time period within which a trial must commence.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

At the request of the parties, and good cause appearing, IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED. The status conference is hereby continued until January 24, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. The time period between December 7, 2012 and January 24, 2013 is excluded under 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