Filed: Mar. 04, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 04, 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 March 5, 2015. 2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until April 16, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., and to exclude time between March 5, 2015, and April 16, 2015, under Local Code T4. 3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following: a) T
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 March 5, 2015. 2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until April 16, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., and to exclude time between March 5, 2015, and April 16, 2015, under Local Code T4. 3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following: a) Th..
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 March 5, 2015.
2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until April 16, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., and to exclude time between March 5, 2015, and April 16, 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 investigative reports and related documents, evidence seized pursuant to search warrants, and business records from the California Employment Development Department. All of this discovery has been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying.
b) Counsel for defendants desire additional time to investigate the allegations in the indictment in light of recent plea negotiations. Specifically, counsel for the government anticipates making written plea offers to each defendant within the next day. Counsel requests additional time to review those offers with their clients and assess the appropriate disposition of the case. Each of the defendants is located in southern California, which imposes logistical concerns on counsel to arrange for appropriate consultation and scheduling and necessitates additional time to assess the plea offers.
c) 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.
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 March 5, 2015 to April 16, 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.
