Filed: Sep. 11, 2013
Latest Update: Sep. 11, 2013
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge. Plaintiff, United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and Thomas A. Johnson, attorney for Andrey Kim, Robert Wilson, attorney for Ahmed Chartaev, John Duree, attorney for Khadzhimurad Babatov, Danny Brace, attorney for Sergey Shschirskiy, Victor Haltom, attorney for Magomed Abdukhalikov, David Fischer, attorney for Nicholas Votaw, Alan Eisner, attorney for Hakob Sergoyan, Peter Kmeto
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge. Plaintiff, United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and Thomas A. Johnson, attorney for Andrey Kim, Robert Wilson, attorney for Ahmed Chartaev, John Duree, attorney for Khadzhimurad Babatov, Danny Brace, attorney for Sergey Shschirskiy, Victor Haltom, attorney for Magomed Abdukhalikov, David Fischer, attorney for Nicholas Votaw, Alan Eisner, attorney for Hakob Sergoyan, Peter Kmeto,..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
Plaintiff, United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and Thomas A. Johnson, attorney for Andrey Kim, Robert Wilson, attorney for Ahmed Chartaev, John Duree, attorney for Khadzhimurad Babatov, Danny Brace, attorney for Sergey Shschirskiy, Victor Haltom, attorney for Magomed Abdukhalikov, David Fischer, attorney for Nicholas Votaw, Alan Eisner, attorney for Hakob Sergoyan, Peter Kmeto, attorney for Stanislav Sarber, and Christopher Haydn-Myer, attorney for Anton Tkachev, hereby stipulate as follows:
1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on September 12, 2013.
2. By this stipulation, Defendants now move to continue the Status Conference to December 5, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., and to exclude time between September 12, 2013, and December 5, 2013 under Local Code T4. Plaintiff does not oppose this request.
3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:
a. The government has represented that the discovery associated with this case includes approximately 4,500 pages of discovery. This discovery has been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying.
b. The continuance is being requested because the attorneys for each defendant need more time to prepare which will include reviewing discovery, discussing that discovery with their respective clients, considering new evidence that may affect the disposition of this case, conducting necessary research and investigation and then discussing with their clients how to proceed.
c. Counsel each defendant believe that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny him/her 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 of September 12, 2013, to December 5, 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 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.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
