Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. BOWEN, 2:13-CR-00318 TLN. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20141028b17 Visitors: 8
Filed: Oct. 22, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 22, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge. STIPULATION Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through defendant's counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on October 23, 2014. 2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until December 4, 2014, and to exclude time be
More

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

TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.

STIPULATION

Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through defendant's counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on October 23, 2014.

2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until December 4, 2014, and to exclude time between October 23, 2014, and December 4, 2014, under Local Code T4. The United States does not oppose.

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

a) The United States has represented that the discovery associated with this case includes a significant amount of computer evidence. All of this discovery has been made available for inspection.

b) Counsel for defendant desires additional time to consult with his client and to conduct research with respect to the charges, including as it relates to potential resolution. Additionally counsel for the defendant has requested a plea agreement, which the United States shall provide in short time and for which counsel for the defendant will need additional time to review discovery as it relates to the factual basis and to conduct research with respect to the application of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines to this case.

c) Counsel for defendant believes that 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.

d) The United States 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 October 23, 2014 to December 4, 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 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.

FINDINGS AND 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