U.S. v. MISTLER, 2:13-cr-00165-TLN. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20150513772
Visitors: 9
Filed: May 12, 2015
Latest Update: May 12, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE; FINDING OF EXCLUDABLE TIME TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . STIPULATION Plaintiff, United States of America, through Assistant U.S. Attorney Christiaan Highsmith and defendant, Stacey Mistler, through her attorney, Christopher Haydn-Myer, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 1. A status conference is currently set for May 14th, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. 2. By this stipulation, the above-named defendant now moves to continue the status confer
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE; FINDING OF EXCLUDABLE TIME TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . STIPULATION Plaintiff, United States of America, through Assistant U.S. Attorney Christiaan Highsmith and defendant, Stacey Mistler, through her attorney, Christopher Haydn-Myer, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 1. A status conference is currently set for May 14th, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. 2. By this stipulation, the above-named defendant now moves to continue the status confere..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE; FINDING OF EXCLUDABLE TIME
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
STIPULATION
Plaintiff, United States of America, through Assistant U.S. Attorney Christiaan Highsmith and defendant, Stacey Mistler, through her attorney, Christopher Haydn-Myer, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
1. A status conference is currently set for May 14th, 2015 at 9:30 a.m.
2. By this stipulation, the above-named defendant now moves to continue the status conference to July 30th, 2015 at 9:30 a.m., and to exclude time between May 14th, 2015 to July 30th, 2015 under Local Code T4. Plaintiff does not oppose this request.
3. The basis upon which the parties agree to this proposed continuance of the status conference is as follows:
a. Counsel for the defendant was recently appointed, and counsel needs time to review the discovery, meet with the defendant, and then review the previously provided Plea Agreement. Counsel believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny his client the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
b. Plaintiff does not object to the continuance.
c. Based on the above-stated findings, the ends of justice served by continuing the status conference as requested outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act.
d. For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 16 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq., within which trial must commence, the time period from May 14th, 2015 to July 30th, 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 by the Court at the 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.
5. Finally, Christopher Haydn-Myer has been authorized by counsel to sign this stipulation on his behalf.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
ORDER
IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
