Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Thompson, 13-00273 MCE. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20150922612 Visitors: 18
Filed: Sep. 21, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 21, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. , Chief District Judge . The United States of America, through its counsels of record, Benjamin B. Wagner, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California, and Matthew G. Morris, Assistant United States Attorney, and defendant Samuel Clinton Thompson, through his attorney, Ronald Peters, Esq, hereby stipulate and agree that the status conference scheduled for September 17, 2015 at 9:00 am should be co
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE

The United States of America, through its counsels of record, Benjamin B. Wagner, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California, and Matthew G. Morris, Assistant United States Attorney, and defendant Samuel Clinton Thompson, through his attorney, Ronald Peters, Esq, hereby stipulate and agree that the status conference scheduled for September 17, 2015 at 9:00 am should be continued to December 3, 2015 at 9:00 a.m.

Defendant's attorney has a conflict in State Superior Court that was scheduled after the last continuance. Accordingly, a Local Rule T-4 exclusion would be appropriate and preparation and continuity of counsel.

Parties agree that time should be excluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), and

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE Local Code T-4 — reasonable time to prepare and for continuity of counsel. The parties agree that time be excluded under this provision September 17, 2015 to and including December 3, 2015.

Respectfully Submitted, BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney /s/Matthew G. Morris_______ MATTHEW G. MORRIS Assistant U.S. Attorney Dated: September 14, 2015.

ORDER

The Court, having 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 stipulation of the parties, the Court 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, and defendant continuity of counsel. The Court specifically finds that the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the interests of the public and that the time from the date of the stipulation, September 17, 2015, to and including December 3, 2015.

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