Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. DIAZ, 2:13-CR-0412 TLN. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20150127913 Visitors: 13
Filed: Jan. 26, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 26, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge. STIPULATION 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on January 29, 2015. 2. By this stipulation, defendants Jose Jaime Diaz, Emilio Barba and Gabriel Vargas-Guerrero, by and through their undersigned counsel, now move to continue the status conference until February 12, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., and to exclude time between January 29, 2015 and February 12, 2015, und
More

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

TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.

STIPULATION

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on January 29, 2015.

2. By this stipulation, defendants Jose Jaime Diaz, Emilio Barba and Gabriel Vargas-Guerrero, by and through their undersigned counsel, now move to continue the status conference until February 12, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., and to exclude time between January 29, 2015 and February 12, 2015, under Local Code T4.

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

a) The government has represented that the discovery associated with this case includes approximately 700 pages of documents and photographs, including investigative reports. All of this discovery has been produced directly to counsel.

b) All of the defendants have requested plea agreements, which the United States has provided to counsel. Counsel will need additional time to review the agreements as well as the discovery in the case with respect to the terms and factual bases of the agreements, and consult with their clients regarding implications for trial.

c) Counsel for defendants desire additional time to consult with their clients, conduct investigation and research, review discovery, and to discuss potential resolutions with their clients.

d) Counsel for defendants believe that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

e) The United States does not object to the continuance.

f) 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.

g) 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 January 29, 2015 to February 12, 2015, 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.

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