Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. SCARCELLO, 2:12-cr-288-TLN. (2013)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20130529c13 Visitors: 5
Filed: May 28, 2013
Latest Update: May 28, 2013
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDING TIME TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective counsel, MATTHEW MORRIS, Assistant United States Attorney, attorney for Plaintiff, and MATTHEW SCOBLE, attorney for JASON SCARCELLO, that the status conference hearing date of May 30, 2013 be vacated, and the matter be set for status conference on August 1, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. The reason for this continuance is t
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDING TIME

TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective counsel, MATTHEW MORRIS, Assistant United States Attorney, attorney for Plaintiff, and MATTHEW SCOBLE, attorney for JASON SCARCELLO, that the status conference hearing date of May 30, 2013 be vacated, and the matter be set for status conference on August 1, 2013 at 9:30 a.m.

The reason for this continuance is to allow defense counsel additional time to review discovery with the defendant, to examine possible defenses and to continue investigating the facts of the case.

Based upon the foregoing, the parties agree that the time under the Speedy Trial Act should be excluded from the date of signing of this order through and including August 1, 2013 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161 (h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv)[reasonable time to prepare] and Local Code T4 based upon continuity of counsel and defense preparation.

Respectfully Submitted.

ORDER

UPON GOOD CAUSE SHOWN and the stipulation of all parties, it is ordered that the May 30, 2013, status conference hearing be continued to August 1, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. Based on the representation of defense counsel and good cause appearing there from, the Court hereby finds that the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court finds that the ends of justice to be served by granting a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. It is ordered that time up to and including the August 1, 2013 status conference shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this matter must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) and Local Code T-4, to allow defense counsel reasonable time to prepare.

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