Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. DAVENPORT, 2:13-CR-00399 MCE. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20140303755 Visitors: 4
Filed: Feb. 25, 2014
Latest Update: Feb. 25, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE FROM FEBRUARY 27, 2014, TO MAY 8, 2014. MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge. STIPULATION Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through his counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on February 27, 2014. 2. By this stipulation, the defendant now moves to continue the status conference until May 8, 2014, and to exclu
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE FROM FEBRUARY 27, 2014, TO MAY 8, 2014.

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge.

STIPULATION

Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through his counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on February 27, 2014.

2. By this stipulation, the defendant now moves to continue the status conference until May 8, 2014, and to exclude time between February 27, 2014, and May 8, 2014 under Local Code T4.

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 several hundred pages of discovery. Included with this discovery is a significant amount of computer evidence. All of this discovery has been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying.

b. Counsel is currently in a trial in San Jose, California, and has been unable to devote the time necessary to evaluate the evidence.

c. Counsel for defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny him 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., the time period of February 27, 2014 to May 8, 2014, 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.

The parties' stipulation is approved and so ordered. The time beginning February 27, 2014, until May 8, 2014, is excluded from the calculation of time under the Speedy Trial Act. For the reasons contained in the parties' stipulation, this exclusion is appropriate to ensure effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv); Local Code T4. The interests of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

IT IS SO 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