Filed: Sep. 19, 2013
Latest Update: Sep. 19, 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 Defendants, by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this case was set for a Status Conference and possible Motion Hearing on September 26, 2013. A Jury Trial is scheduled for March 31, 2014. 2. By this stipulation, the all Defendants move to continue the Status Conference to
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 Defendants, by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this case was set for a Status Conference and possible Motion Hearing on September 26, 2013. A Jury Trial is scheduled for March 31, 2014. 2. By this stipulation, the all Defendants move to continue the Status Conference to ..
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 Defendants, by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:
1. By previous order, this case was set for a Status Conference and possible Motion Hearing on September 26, 2013. A Jury Trial is scheduled for March 31, 2014.
2. By this stipulation, the all Defendants move to continue the Status Conference to November 14, 2013. Plaintiff does not oppose this request. Time has previously been excluded up to the jury trial date of March 31, 2014, under Local Code T4. The parties agree and stipulate and request that the Court find the following:
a. The government provided discovery associated with this case that includes approximately 700 pages. This discovery has been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying.
b. Counsel for defendants desires additional time in order to continue review of the discovery and contemplate a potential resolution.
c. Counsel for defendants believes 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 until March 22, 2013, 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.
3. 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.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
