Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. REEVES, CR-S-11-365-GEB. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20140815k54 Visitors: 8
Filed: Aug. 12, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 12, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; [PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., District Judge. The United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Justin Lee, Assistant United States Attorney, together with counsel for defendant Ronald Reeves, John R. Manning, Esq., hereby stipulate the following: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status conference on August 15, 2014. 2. By this stipulation, the defendant now moves to contin
More

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

GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., District Judge.

The United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Justin Lee, Assistant United States Attorney, together with counsel for defendant Ronald Reeves, John R. Manning, Esq., hereby stipulate the following:

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status conference on August 15, 2014.

2. By this stipulation, the defendant now moves to continue the status conference until September 19, 2014 and to exclude time between August 15, 2014 and September 19, 2014 under the Local CodeT-4 (to allow defense counsel time to prepare).

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

a. Counsel for the defendant needs additional time to review the discovery, conduct investigation, and continue negotiations with prosecution in an effort to reach a resolution. b. Currently the discovery in this case includes 129 pages and two video DVDs. c. Counsel for the defendant has recently provided the government with numerous documents relating to the defendant. The government needs time to review the material and the parties need additional time to discuss a plea agreement. The defense will need additional time to: meet with the defendant to review the proposed agreement; discuss statutory and USSG implications associated with the agreement; discuss consequences associated with a guilty plea (or verdict); discuss possible defenses; discuss trial scenarios; and, options going forward. The parties have discussed this case at length and it is anticipated a draft plea agreement will be provided shortly. d. Counsel for the defendant believes the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. e. The Government does not object to the continuance. f. Based on the above-stated findings, the ends of justice served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act. g. For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 United States Code Section 3161(h)(7)(A) within which trial must commence, the time period of August 15, 2014 to September 19, 2014, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 United States Code Section 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(ii) and (iv), corresponding to Local Code T-4 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.

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