Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Gilmore, 2:13-cr-300 GEB. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20150625b18 Visitors: 16
Filed: Jun. 24, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 24, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL CONFIRMATION HEARING TO JULY 10, 2015 GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr. , Senior District Judge . Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendants, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the trial confirmation hearing until July 10, 2015 at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Garland E. Burrell Jr. Time has already bee
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL CONFIRMATION HEARING TO JULY 10, 2015

Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendants, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the trial confirmation hearing until July 10, 2015 at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Garland E. Burrell Jr. Time has already been excluded up to and including July 28, 2015 under Local Code T4. Plaintiff does not oppose this request.

2. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:

a. Counsel for defendants request additional time to review discovery, to conduct investigation and research related to the charges, to discuss potential resolutions with their clients, and to otherwise prepare for trial.

b. Counsel for defendants believe that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny them the 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 best interest of the public and the defendants in a trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act.

3. 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 time period within which a trial must commence.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Date: June 23, 2015 BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney /s/ Samuel Wong SAMUEL WONG Assistant United States Attorney

ORDER

The Court, having received, read, and considered the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefrom, adopts the stipulation of the parties in its entirety as its order. Based on the representation of the parties and good cause appearing therefrom, the Court hereby finds that the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court finds that the ends of justice to be served by granting a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. It is ordered that the trial confirmation hearing is continued from June 26, 2015 to July 10, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. Time is already excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this matter must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h) (7) (A) and (B) (iv) and Local Code T 4, to allow defense counsel reasonable time to prepare.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer