Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Rodriguez, 2:12-CR-00376-TLN. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20140527b41 Visitors: 7
Filed: May 23, 2014
Latest Update: May 23, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE CHANGE OF PLEA HEARING TIME: 9:30 a.m. COURT: TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge. TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ITS ATTORNEY OF RECORD, JILL MARIE THOMAS, A.U.S.A.; THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE COURT; AND THE HONORABLE JUDGE. TROY L. NUNLEY, PRESIDING IN SAID COURT: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective counsel, Jill Marie Thomas, Assistant U.S. Attorney, attorney for plaintiff, and Arturo Hernandez-M., attorney for
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE CHANGE OF PLEA HEARING TIME: 9:30 a.m. COURT:

TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.

TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ITS ATTORNEY OF RECORD, JILL MARIE THOMAS, A.U.S.A.; THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE COURT; AND THE HONORABLE JUDGE. TROY L. NUNLEY, PRESIDING IN SAID COURT:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective counsel, Jill Marie Thomas, Assistant U.S. Attorney, attorney for plaintiff, and Arturo Hernandez-M., attorney for defendant Diego Fernando Limon Rodriguez, that the previously scheduled change of plea date of May 22, 2014, be vacated and the matter be set for a change of plea on June 12, 2014, at 9:30 a.m..

This request is made jointly by the government and defense. Defense counsel is in Chicago, Illinois attending a matter in federal court which will require him to remain through Thursday, May 22, 2014. The additional time will allow the defense to prepare for the change of plea. The parties agree that the interest of justice is served by granting this continuance and outweighs the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

Further, the parties agree and stipulate that the ends of justice served by the granting of such a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial and that time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act should therefore be excluded under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) from May 22, 2014 to June 12, 2014.

ORDER

The Court, having received, read, and considered the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefrom, adopts the stipulation of the parties in its entirety as its order. Based on the stipulation of the parties and the recitation of facts contained therein, the Court finds that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings and trial itself within the time limits established in 18 U.S.C. § 3161. In addition, the Court specifically finds that the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny defense counsel to this stipulation reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court finds that the ends of justice to be served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

The Court orders that the time from May 22, 2014, up to and including June 12, 2014, shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). It is further ordered that the May 22, 2014, change of plea hearing shall be vacated and continued until June 12, 2014, at 9:30 a.m.

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