Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. PIRT, CR. S-11-468 TLN. (2013)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20130711791 Visitors: 8
Filed: Jul. 10, 2013
Latest Update: Jul. 10, 2013
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge. IT IS HEREBY stipulated between the United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Michael D. Anderson, Assistant United States Attorney, together with counsel for defendant Stephen Douglas Pirt, Scott L. Tedmon, Esq., counsel for defendant Janis Santana Pirt, Joseph J. Wiseman, Esq., and counsel for defendant Erik Hermann Green, John R. Manning, Esq., stipulate t
More

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

TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.

IT IS HEREBY stipulated between the United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Michael D. Anderson, Assistant United States Attorney, together with counsel for defendant Stephen Douglas Pirt, Scott L. Tedmon, Esq., counsel for defendant Janis Santana Pirt, Joseph J. Wiseman, Esq., and counsel for defendant Erik Hermann Green, John R. Manning, Esq., stipulate that the status conference presently set for July 11, 2013 be continued to August 22, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., thus vacating the presently set status conference. Accordingly, the Parties hereby stipulate the following:

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status conference on July 11, 2013.

2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until August 22, 2013 and to exclude time between July 11, 2013 and August 22, 2013 under the Local Code T-4 (to allow defense counsel time to prepare).

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

a. This is a relatively complex financial document case, including in excess of 1,100 pages of discovery. The Government has additional documents (approximately 40 "bankers" boxes) available for review at the IRS office in Oakland, Ca. The defendants are alleged to have participated in a mortgage fraud scheme involving several homes. b. Counsel for the defendants need additional time to review the discovery; review investigation reports; and, discuss USSG calculations and possible resolution scenarios with the (respective) defendants. c. Counsel for defendants believe 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. d. The government does not object to the continuance. e. Based on the above-stated findings, the ends of justice served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act. f. For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 United States Code Section 3161(h)(7)(A) within which trial must commence, the time period of July 11, 2013 to August 22, 2013, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 United States Code Section 3161(h)(7)(A) ) and (B)(iv), corresponding to Local Code T-4 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.

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 period within which a trial must commence.

IT IS SO STIPULATED

Dated July 9, 2013 Benjamin B. Wagner United States Attorney by: /s/ Michael D. Anderson MICHAEL D. ANDERSON Assistant U.S. Attorney

ORDER

IT IS SO FOUND AND 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