Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Cline, 2:14-CR-0210-JAM. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20160509665 Visitors: 14
Filed: May 06, 2016
Latest Update: May 06, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . Plaintiff United States of America, by and through Assistant United States Attorney Jason Hitt; defendant Leonard Walter, by and through counsel Scott L. Tedmon; and defendant James Cline, by and through counsel Danny D. Brace, Jr., hereby agree and stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status conference on May 10, 2016 at 9:15 a.m. 2
More

STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER

Plaintiff United States of America, by and through Assistant United States Attorney Jason Hitt; defendant Leonard Walter, by and through counsel Scott L. Tedmon; and defendant James Cline, by and through counsel Danny D. Brace, Jr., hereby agree and stipulate as follows:

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status conference on May 10, 2016 at 9:15 a.m. 2. By this stipulation, the parties now move to continue the status conference to Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 9:15 a.m., and to exclude time between May 10, 2016 and August 16, 2016 under Local Code T4. 3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request the Court find the following: a) On April 18, 2016, the Court ordered that Scott L. Tedmon be substituted in as counsel of record for defendant Leonard Walter, replacing former counsel of record Jennifer C. Noble. b) Given his recent appointment to the case, Mr. Tedmon needs additional time to review defendant Leonard Walter's case, which includes government produced discovery. This discovery was produced by the government to former defense counsel Jennifer C. Noble and has now been provided to Mr. Tedmon. Further, Mr. Tedmon needs time to consult with defendant Leonard Walter regarding the status of the case, determine if there is a need for defense investigation, and discuss the possibility of a plea offer from the government. c) Mr. Tedmon believes the failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny him reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. Counsel for the government and counsel for co-defendant James Cline have no objection to Mr. Tedmon's request for additional time to prepare the case. d) Based on the foregoing, the ends of justice served by continuing the case as requested outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act. e) 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 May 10, 2016 to August 16, 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 the 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 defendants 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.

PHILLIP A. TALBERT United States Attorney /s/Jason Hitt JASON HITT Assistant U.S. Attorney

FINDINGS AND ORDER

IT IS SO FOUND AND 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