Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Newbold, 2:14-cr-00223-MCE-1. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20140904839 Visitors: 18
Filed: Sep. 03, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 03, 2014
Summary: AMENDED STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE DATE MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge. Defendant: BRENT LEE NEWBOLD, through his attorney, PETER KMETO, and the United States of America, through its counsel of record, MICHAEL M. BECKWITH, stipulate and agree to the following: 1. The presently scheduled Status Conference date of September 4, 2014 shall be vacated, and said Hearing be rescheduled for October 2, 201 at 9:00 a.m. for further status. 2. Time will be exclud
More

AMENDED STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE DATE

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge.

Defendant: BRENT LEE NEWBOLD, through his attorney, PETER KMETO, and the United States of America, through its counsel of record, MICHAEL M. BECKWITH, stipulate and agree to the following:

1. The presently scheduled Status Conference date of September 4, 2014 shall be vacated, and said Hearing be rescheduled for October 2, 201 at 9:00 a.m. for further status.

2. Time will be excluded under Local Rule T4.

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

a. The government has recently provided Defense Counsel with discovery associated with this case which includes: investigative summaries; investigative reports and related documents in electronic form which is quite voluminous (i.e., over 200 megabytes of information).

b. Defense counsel desires time to: review these items; consult with his client, to review the current charges, to conduct investigation and research related to the charges, to review and copy discovery for this matter, to discuss potential resolutions with his client, to prepare pretrial motions, and to otherwise prepare for trial.

c. Counsel for the Defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny him/her the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

d. The government does not object to the continuance.

e. 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.

f. 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 September 4, 2014 to October 9, 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's 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.

Dated: September 1, 2014 /s/MICHAEL M. BECKWITH Assistant US Attorney for the Government

ORDER

Upon good cause shown and the stipulation of the two parties (ECF No. 18) the status conference hearing for Defendant, Brent Lee Newbold is continued to October 2, 2014, as set forth above. The Court finds excludable time through October 2, 2014, based on Local Code T4, and that a continuance is necessary for the reasons stated above and that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial.

IT IS SO 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