Filed: May 09, 2014
Latest Update: May 09, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE FROM MAY 8, 2014, TO JUNE 12, 2014 TROY L. NUNLEY, 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 May 8, 2014. 2. By this stipulation, the defendant now moves to continue the status conference until June 12, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., and to exclude time bet
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE FROM MAY 8, 2014, TO JUNE 12, 2014 TROY L. NUNLEY, 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 May 8, 2014. 2. By this stipulation, the defendant now moves to continue the status conference until June 12, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., and to exclude time betw..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE FROM MAY 8, 2014, TO JUNE 12, 2014
TROY L. NUNLEY, 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 May 8, 2014.
2. By this stipulation, the defendant now moves to continue the status conference until June 12, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., and to exclude time between May 8, 2014, and June 12, 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 a significant amount of computer evidence. In addition, the defendant has provided material to the United States for its consideration
b. Counsel for both parties are unable to devote the time necessary to review of the evidence because of other duties. Counsel believe that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny them the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
c. 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.
d. For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq., the time period of May 8, 2014 to June 12, 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.
