Filed: Feb. 02, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 02, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . STIPULATION 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on February 4, 2016. 2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until March 17, 2016, at 9:30 a.m., and to exclude time between February 4, 2016, and March 17, 2016, under Local Code T4. 3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . STIPULATION 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on February 4, 2016. 2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until March 17, 2016, at 9:30 a.m., and to exclude time between February 4, 2016, and March 17, 2016, under Local Code T4. 3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following: ..
More
STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
STIPULATION
1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on February 4, 2016.
2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until March 17, 2016, at 9:30 a.m., and to exclude time between February 4, 2016, and March 17, 2016, 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 disks worth of data, containing video footage, photographs and other documents. All of this discovery has been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying.
b) This matter is related to another criminal prosecution pending before this Court, United States v. Khoonsrivong, et al., 15-CR-00176-TLN, involving separate charges against the defendants in this matter and others. The defendants in this matter wish to explore the possibility of a global resolution to all pending charges in this matter and in that related case. That related case involves approximately 47,000 pages of discovery;
c) Counsel for defendants desire additional time to conduct investigation and then consult with their respective clients, and to otherwise prepare.
d) Counsel for defendants believe that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
e) The government does not object to the continuance.
f) 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.
g) 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 February 4, 2016 to March 17, 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 defendants' 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.
