Filed: Apr. 06, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 06, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . The United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Christiaan Highsmith, Assistant United States Attorney, together with counsel for defendant Shannon Armstrong, John R. Manning, Esq., hereby stipulate the following: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for arraignment and change of plea on April 7, 2016. 2. By this stipulation, the defendant now moves
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . The United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Christiaan Highsmith, Assistant United States Attorney, together with counsel for defendant Shannon Armstrong, John R. Manning, Esq., hereby stipulate the following: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for arraignment and change of plea on April 7, 2016. 2. By this stipulation, the defendant now moves ..
More
STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
The United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Christiaan Highsmith, Assistant United States Attorney, together with counsel for defendant Shannon Armstrong, John R. Manning, Esq., hereby stipulate the following:
1. By previous order, this matter was set for arraignment and change of plea on April 7, 2016.
2. By this stipulation, the defendant now moves to continue this matter to April 21, 2016, at 9:30 a.m., and to exclude time between April 7, 2016 and April 21, 2016, under the Local Codes T-2 (unusual and complex) and T-4 (to allow defense counsel time to prepare).
3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request the Court find the following:
a. As the court is aware, this is a "wire-tap" case wherein the government was "up on" multiple phone lines (four phone lines). Numerous federal and local law enforcement agencies had been investigating the individuals named in the indictment for several months prior to their respective arrests. Initially the government produced over 800 pages of discovery and 5 discs containing audio recordings. On October 27, 2015 the government distributed an additional 33 discs containing search warrant applications, search warrant pictures, and picture/video surveillance.
b. Counsel for the defendant needs additional time to review the proposed plea agreement with the defendant and to discuss the relevant USSG calculations and sentencing factors.
c. Additionally, counsel for Mr. Armstrong may have jury duty on April 7, 2015. Counsel for Mr. Armstrong lives in Sacramento County and is presently due to "call in" to the Jury Commissioner's Office on Tuesday, April 5, 2016. At such time, counsel for Mr. Armstrong will either be told to report for jury duty, or will be given a new date/time to "call in" to determine if/when he is to report for jury duty.
d. Counsel for the defendant believes 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. Moreover, because of the uncertain availability of defense counsel (for Mr. Armstrong), the parties believe a brief continuance is appropriate.
e. The government does not object to the continuance.
f. Based on the above-stated findings, the ends of justice served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act.
g. For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 United States Code Section 3161(h)(7)(A) within which trial must commence, the time period of April 7, 2016 to April 21, 2016, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 United States Code Section 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(ii) and(iv), corresponding to Local Codes T-2 and T-4 because it results from a continuance granted by the Court at the 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.
4. Nothing in this stipulation and order shall preclude a finding that provision 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.
