Filed: Oct. 24, 2013
Latest Update: Oct. 24, 2013
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER CONTINUING CHANGE OF PLEA HEARING WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge. Defendant, ANGELA BOSCHKE, by and through her counsel of record, TONI CARBONE, and the GOVERNMENT hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for Change of Plea Hearing on October 28, 2013. 2. By this stipulation, the parties now move to continue the Change of Plea Hearing from October 28, 2013 until November 18, 2013, and to exclude time between
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER CONTINUING CHANGE OF PLEA HEARING WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge. Defendant, ANGELA BOSCHKE, by and through her counsel of record, TONI CARBONE, and the GOVERNMENT hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for Change of Plea Hearing on October 28, 2013. 2. By this stipulation, the parties now move to continue the Change of Plea Hearing from October 28, 2013 until November 18, 2013, and to exclude time between O..
More
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER CONTINUING CHANGE OF PLEA HEARING
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.
Defendant, ANGELA BOSCHKE, by and through her counsel of record, TONI CARBONE, and the GOVERNMENT hereby stipulate as follows:
1. By previous order, this matter was set for Change of Plea Hearing on October 28, 2013.
2. By this stipulation, the parties now move to continue the Change of Plea Hearing from October 28, 2013 until November 18, 2013, and to exclude time between October 28, 2013 and November 18, 2013 under Local Code T4.
3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:
a. Counsel for defendant desires additional time to review discovery, discuss potential resolution with the defendant, and investigate and research issues related to sentencing mitigation. Counsels for the defendant and for the Government are in active discussions related to issues surrounding resolution and sentencing mitigation.
b. Counsel for defendant believes that 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.
c. The Government does not object to the continuance.
d. 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.
e. 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 October 28, 2013 to November 18, 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 FOUND AND ORDERED.
