Filed: May 08, 2015
Latest Update: May 08, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION & ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . STIPULATION Plaintiff, United States of America, by and through its counsel of record Olusere Olowoyeye, and defendants, Coral Wilson, Glenn Barrows, Jermaine Newman, Frank Lobatos, Krislen Bridges, Meuy Lai Saechao and Richard O'Connell by and through their undersigned counsel of record hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for May 12, 2015. 2. By this stipulation, the de
Summary: STIPULATION & ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . STIPULATION Plaintiff, United States of America, by and through its counsel of record Olusere Olowoyeye, and defendants, Coral Wilson, Glenn Barrows, Jermaine Newman, Frank Lobatos, Krislen Bridges, Meuy Lai Saechao and Richard O'Connell by and through their undersigned counsel of record hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for May 12, 2015. 2. By this stipulation, the def..
More
STIPULATION & ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE
JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
STIPULATION
Plaintiff, United States of America, by and through its counsel of record Olusere Olowoyeye, and defendants, Coral Wilson, Glenn Barrows, Jermaine Newman, Frank Lobatos, Krislen Bridges, Meuy Lai Saechao and Richard O'Connell by and through their undersigned counsel of record hereby stipulate as follows:
1. By previous order, this matter was set for May 12, 2015.
2. By this stipulation, the defendants now move to continue the status conference until July 21, 2015 and to exclude time between May 12, 2015 and July 21, 2015 under local code T4. Plaintiff does not oppose this request.
3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:
a. Defense counsel need more time to consult with defendants regarding their case. Thus far, this matter involves over 4000 pages of discovery.
b. Counsel for the defendants believe that failure to grant the above requested continuance would deny them 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 speedy trial.
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 May 12, 2015 to July 21, 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 defendants 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
IT IS SO ORDERED.
