Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Hayes, 2:15-CR-00118-GEB. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20160425618
Filed: Apr. 21, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 21, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE; FINDING OF EXCLUDABLE TIME GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr. , Senior District Judge . STIPULATION 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on April 22, 2016. 2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until June 3, 2016, and to exclude time between April 22, 2016, and June 3, 2016, under Local Code T4. 3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following: a)
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE; FINDING OF EXCLUDABLE TIME

STIPULATION

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on April 22, 2016.

2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until June 3, 2016, and to exclude time between April 22, 2016, and June 3, 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 investigative reports and telephone records. This discovery has been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying. b) Counsel for defendants desire additional time to consult with their clients to review the current charges, to conduct investigation and research related to the charges, to review the discovery for this matter, and to discuss potential resolutions with his/her client. Further, counsel for the government is in the process of formulating potential plea offers for these remaining defendants. The primary defendant has entered a plea and now the parties are working on agreements for the balance of the defendants. c) 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. 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 defendant 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 April 22, 2016to June 3, 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.

ORDER

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