U.S. v. JOHAL, 2:14-CR-00169-GEB. (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20160328603
Visitors: 6
Filed: Mar. 24, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 24, 2016
Summary: AMENDED STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr. , District Judge . Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendants Harjit Johal and Jasvir Kaur, by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for a status conference on March 18, 2016. The parties previously filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order [docket entry 123] vacating the March 18, 2016 status conference and settin
Summary: AMENDED STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr. , District Judge . Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendants Harjit Johal and Jasvir Kaur, by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for a status conference on March 18, 2016. The parties previously filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order [docket entry 123] vacating the March 18, 2016 status conference and setting..
More
AMENDED STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., District Judge.
Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendants Harjit Johal and Jasvir Kaur, by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:
1. By previous order, this matter was set for a status conference on March 18, 2016. The parties previously filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order [docket entry 123] vacating the March 18, 2016 status conference and setting a new status conference for May 27, 2016. There are typographical errors on the previously filed Stipulation and Order, specifically one of the wrong defendants is named.
2. The parties file this Amended Stipulation and Proposed Order to correct the errors in docket entry 123.
3. By this stipulation, defendants seek to vacate the March 18, 2016 status hearing and set a new status hearing for May 27, 2016. The defendants seek to exclude time under Local Code T4. Plaintiff does not oppose this request.
4. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:
a. On or about October 1, 2015 the grand jury returned a superseding indictment. The superseding indictment adds Jasvir Kaur as a defendant in this case. Ms. Kaur was arraigned on October 6, 2015.
b. The government has forwarded discovery to counsel for Ms. Kaur. The discovery is voluminous.
c. An exclusion of time is appropriate as to Jasvir Kaur and Harjit Johal in order to provide for continuity of counsel.
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 defendants 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 March 18, 2016 to May 27, 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 each 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 defendants in a speedy trial.
g. This case involves multiple witnesses, multiple defendants; both defendants and the witnesses require interpreters.
5. 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.
DATED: March 21, 2016 Jared Dolan
Assistant United States Attorney
ORDER
IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
