Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Beltran, 2:15-CR-00025-GEB. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20160325e11 Visitors: 15
Filed: Mar. 23, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 23, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr. , 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 Jason Hitt, Assistant United States Attorney, and defendant Ulices Beltran, through his attorney, Ronald Peters, Esq, hereby stipulate and agree that the status conference scheduled for March 25, 2016 at 9:00 am should be continued to April 22, 2016 a
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 Jason Hitt, Assistant United States Attorney, and defendant Ulices Beltran, through his attorney, Ronald Peters, Esq, hereby stipulate and agree that the status conference scheduled for March 25, 2016 at 9:00 am should be continued to April 22, 2016 at 9:00 a.m.

The government will be proposing a plea agreement within the next 30 days and the defendant will require additional time to consider this agreement. Accordingly the defendant agrees that a Local Rule T-4 exclusion would be applicable.

Parties agree that time should be excluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), and Local Code T-4 — reasonable time to prepare and for continuity of counsel. The parties agree that time be excluded under this provision March 25, 2016 to and including April 22, 2016.

DATE: March 25, 2016 Respectfully Submitted, BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney

PROPOSED 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, March 25, 2016, to and including April 22, 2016.

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