Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. HUERTA, 2:13-CR-0408 GEB. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20140409991 Visitors: 7
Filed: Apr. 07, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 07, 2014
Summary: AMENDED STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; [PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., District Judge. STIPULATION Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through defendant's counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on April 11, 2014. 2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until May 30, 2014,
More

AMENDED STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; [PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER

GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., District Judge.

STIPULATION

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

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on April 11, 2014.

2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until May 30, 2014, and to exclude time between April 11, 2014, and May 30, 2014, under Local Code T4.

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

a) On February 19, 2014, the Court approved the substitution of John Baumgardner, Esq. as the defendant's retained counsel of record in this case. b) On March 3, 2014, Mr. Baumgardner filed a notice with the Court (Dkt. No. 22) accepting to be bound by the parties' Stipulated Protective Order (Dkt. No. 17), which permitted Mr. Baumgardner to view evidence subject to the Stipulated Protective Order. c) The government has represented that the discovery associated with this case includes 1,499 of documents and pieces of physical evidence, which have been produced to Mr. Baumgardner and/or made available to him for inspection and/or copying. d) Mr. Baumgarner advised the government that he would be beginning a federal jury trial on April 7, 2014, before the Honorable Troy L. Nunley, U.S. District Judge. e) Counsel for defendant desires additional time to consult with his client, to review the discovery provided or made available in this case, to conduct investigation and research related to the charges, to otherwise prepare for trial, and to explore potential resolution of the charges with the government. f) Counsel for defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny the defendant continuity of counsel and would deny defendant's counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. g) The government does not object to the continuance. h) 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. i) 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 April 11, 2014 to May 30, 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.

[PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND 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