Filed: Jun. 03, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 03, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; [PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . STIPULATION Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through defendant's counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on June 8, 2015. 2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until August 17, 2015, and to
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; [PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . STIPULATION Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through defendant's counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on June 8, 2015. 2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until August 17, 2015, and to e..
More
STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; [PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.
STIPULATION
Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through defendant's counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:
1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on June 8, 2015.
2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until August 17, 2015, and to exclude time between June 8, 2015, and August 17, 2015, under Local Code T4.
3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:
a) Counsel for defendant desires additional time to consult with his client, review the current charges, conduct investigation and research related to the charges, review the discovery, discuss potential resolution, and otherwise prepare for trial.
b) Counsel for defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny him/her the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
c) Although the Indictment was filed in 2010, the defendant was not arrested until December 2014. The defendant is currently out of custody and being supervised by the Pretrial Services Officer.
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 June 8, 2015 to August 17, 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.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
FINDINGS AND ORDER
IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED.
