Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. SINGH, 2:13-CR-00084-TLN. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20141021i85 Visitors: 15
Filed: Oct. 07, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 07, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge. STIPULATION Colin L. Cooper, attorney for Surjit Singh, Michael Chastaine, attorney for Anita Sharma, Erik Babcock, attorney for Rajeshwar Singh and Jared Dolan, attorney for the United States of America, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on October 9, 2014. 2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until December 11, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., a
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE

TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.

STIPULATION

Colin L. Cooper, attorney for Surjit Singh, Michael Chastaine, attorney for Anita Sharma, Erik Babcock, attorney for Rajeshwar Singh and Jared Dolan, attorney for the United States of America, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on October 9, 2014.

2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until December 11, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., and to exclude time between October 9, 2014 and December 11, 2014, under Local Code T4.

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

a) Colin L. Cooper desires additional time to review the discovery, conduct\ Investigation and consult with his client.

b) Counsel for all defendants believe that the 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) The government does not object to the continuance.

d) 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 defendants in a trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act.

e) 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 October 10, 2014 to December 11, 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 defendants' 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

For the reasons stated above, the Court sets Thursday, December 11, 2014, at the hour of 9:30 a.m. as the date for the status conference. The court also finds that the exclusion of this period from the time limits applicable under 18 U.S.C. §3161 is warranted, and that the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial for the periods from October 9, 2014 to December 11, 2014, See 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(A); and that the failure to grant the requested exclusion of time would deny counsel for the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation and continuity of counsel, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. See 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

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