STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERNCE

ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.

It is hereby stipulated between the parties, Josh Sigal, Assistant United States Attorney, and Michael Chastaine, attorney for Albert Mitchell, that the evidential hearing set before Judge Claire on Monday March 30, 2015 should be continued until Monday May 11, 2015 at 9:00 am. The continuance is necessary because counsel for Mr. Mitchell recently took over the case and is still in the process of reviewing the discovery and the extensive documentation that has been provided by the client. Further, counsel will require the assistance of a forensic expert and counsel is exploring the availability and precise nature of the expertise that is required in this matter.

This matter was set for an evidentiary hearing by previous counsel. Counsel for Mr. Mitchell is still reviewing that petition and researching the issues raised. Counsel needs additional time to complete his research and prepare for such a hearing.

Counsel for Mr. Mitchell requires additional time to consult with Mr. Mitchell, conduct investigation and research, and meet with the Government to determine the status of the case, resolve potential discovery and/or evidentiary issues and explore settlement.

Counsel for Mr. Mitchell believes that failure to grant this request would deny him the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

The Government does not object to the continuance.

Based on the above-stated stipulations, counsel for both parties stipulation that 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.

For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §1361 et seq., within which trial must commence, the time period of March 30, 2015 to May 11, 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 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.

ORDER

IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED.