Filed: Aug. 15, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 15, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXCLUDE TIME SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge STIPULATION Plaintiff, United States of America ("Plaintiff"), by and through its counsel of record, and the defendant, Alejandro Angel Guerrero ("Defendant"), by and through his counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. Previously, this matter was set for status on August 18, 2014. 2. By this stipulation, Defendant now moves to continue the status conference until October 20, 2014, and to exclude time between
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXCLUDE TIME SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge STIPULATION Plaintiff, United States of America ("Plaintiff"), by and through its counsel of record, and the defendant, Alejandro Angel Guerrero ("Defendant"), by and through his counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. Previously, this matter was set for status on August 18, 2014. 2. By this stipulation, Defendant now moves to continue the status conference until October 20, 2014, and to exclude time between ..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXCLUDE TIME
SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge
STIPULATION
Plaintiff, United States of America ("Plaintiff"), by and through its counsel of record, and the defendant, Alejandro Angel Guerrero ("Defendant"), by and through his counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:
1. Previously, this matter was set for status on August 18, 2014.
2. By this stipulation, Defendant now moves to continue the status conference until October 20, 2014, and to exclude time between August 18, 2014, to October 20, 2014, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). Plaintiff does not oppose this request.
3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:
a. Defense counsel, Mr. Gilbert D. Somera, will be unavailable to attend the presently-scheduled status conference on August 18, 2014, due to a criminal trial pending before the Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin, Stockton Branch.
b. The parties herein are further involved in ongoing plea negotiations and need additional time to explore the possibility of a plea deal.
c. The parties are awaiting additional discovery, specifically lab results which the agent in charge has not yet received.
d. Counsel for Defendant desires additional time to consult with his client, to review the current charges and discuss the potential resolution with his client.
e. Counsel for Defendant believes that the 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.
f. The government does not object to the continuance.
g. Based on the above-stated findings, the ends of justice are served by continuing the case as requested which outweighs the interest of the public and the defendants in a trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq.
h. For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, within which trial must commence, the time period of August 18, 2014, to October 20, 2014, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), 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 are served by taking such action which outweighs the best interest of the public and 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.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
