Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. SAHLBACH, 2:14-CR-118 GEB. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20150709a66 Visitors: 11
Filed: Jul. 08, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 08, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; [PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr. , Senior 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 July 10, 2015. 2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until September 4
More

STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; [PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER

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 July 10, 2015.

2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until September 4, 2015, and to exclude time between July 10, 2015, and September 4, 2015, under Local Code T4.

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

a) The government has represented that the discovery associated with this case includes investigative reports and approximately seventeen boxes of discovery containing bank records and other corporate records produced by third party custodians. The defendant's representatives spent multiple days at the FBI office in Sacramento having the documents and CD's copied. All of this discovery has been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying. b) Counsel for defendant desires additional time to complete discovery and continue discussions with the government. The defendant has recently produced reciprocal discovery, which requires additional investigation from the government and additional discussions with the defendant. Also, the defendant has served a number of subpoenas on third-parties. One of those entities, First Bank, has filed a motion to quash multiple subpoenas, with a motion hearing set for August 12, 2015. Depending on the result of that motion, additional time may be necessary to review additional materials produced by First Bank pursuant to the defendant's subpoena. c) 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. 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 July 10, 2015 to September 4, 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.

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.

FINDINGS AND ORDER

IT IS SO FOUND AND 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