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

GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., District Judge.

STIPULATION

Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendants Francisco Parra Arrellanez, Jovany Romo Arrellanes, Efrain Padilla Pena, and Omar Nuno, by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on December 4, 2015.

2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until January 22, 2016 and to exclude time between December 4, 2015 and January 22, 2016, under Local Code T4. The United States does not oppose this request.

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

a) The United States has represented that the discovery associated with this case includes investigative reports and wiretap applications in electronic form constituting approximately 4000 pages of documents. The United States also represents that the discovery includes approximately 20 CDs of audio recordings, including intercepted communications, and transcripts and line reports. All of this discovery has been produced directly to counsel.

b) On December 1, 2015, defendant Omar Nuno made his first appearance in this case. Ms. White was appointed to represent him. Ms. White will need time to begin reviewing the discovery, which is very substantial, conducting research, and consulting with her client.

c) Counsel for all of the defendants other than Omar Nuno have received offers to resolve the case. Counsel represent that they have not yet been able to consult with their clients regarding the offers that have been presented, and need additional time to discuss the agreements with their clients and to consider the discovery provided as it relates to the provisions of the plea agreements.

d) Counsel for the defendants other than Omar Nuno have also begun discussions about setting this matter for trial. It is anticipated that counsel for Omar Nuno will need to decide whether to join in a requested trial date or to seek severance based upon her need to prepare for trial.

e) 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.

f) The United States does not object to the continuance.

g) 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 defendants in a trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act.

h) 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 December 4, 2015 through January 22, 2016, 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.

ORDER

IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED.