U.S. v. KNOCKUM, 14-CR-0115-JAM. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20150706921
Visitors: 18
Filed: Jul. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 02, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE; FINDING OF EXCLUDABLE TIME JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . STIPULATION Plaintiff, United States of America, through Assistant U.S. Attorney Roger Yang and defendant, Kenneth Knockum, through his attorney, Christopher Haydn-Myer, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 1. A status conference is currently set for July 7th, 2015 at 9:15 a.m. 2. By this stipulation, the above-named defendant now moves to continue the status conference to J
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE; FINDING OF EXCLUDABLE TIME JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . STIPULATION Plaintiff, United States of America, through Assistant U.S. Attorney Roger Yang and defendant, Kenneth Knockum, through his attorney, Christopher Haydn-Myer, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 1. A status conference is currently set for July 7th, 2015 at 9:15 a.m. 2. By this stipulation, the above-named defendant now moves to continue the status conference to Ju..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE; FINDING OF EXCLUDABLE TIME
JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
STIPULATION
Plaintiff, United States of America, through Assistant U.S. Attorney Roger Yang and defendant, Kenneth Knockum, through his attorney, Christopher Haydn-Myer, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
1. A status conference is currently set for July 7th, 2015 at 9:15 a.m.
2. By this stipulation, the above-named defendant now moves to continue the status conference to July 28th, 2015 at 9:15 a.m., and to exclude time between July 7th, 2015 to July 28th, 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 has met with Assistant United States Attorney Roger Yang, and requested that specific tax documents be provided through the discovery process. Counsel needs additional time to read the discovery, and then discuss the materials with Mr. Knockum.
b. Counsel for the defendant 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.
c. Plaintiff does not object to the continuance.
d. 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.
e. 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 July 7th, 2015 to July 28th, 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
