Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Ludwig, 2:14-CR-00043-GEB. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20160727b25 Visitors: 9
Filed: Jul. 25, 2016
Latest Update: Jul. 25, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr. , District Judge . The defendants Donald Loyde Harned, Joseph Robert Sharp and Edwin Forrest Ludwig, III, by and through their undersigned counsel, and the United States, by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby agree and request the status conference currently set for Friday, July 29, 2016 at 9:00 am be vacated and continued to Friday, September 2, 2016 at 9:00 am. This continuance is necessary as the partie
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE

The defendants Donald Loyde Harned, Joseph Robert Sharp and Edwin Forrest Ludwig, III, by and through their undersigned counsel, and the United States, by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby agree and request the status conference currently set for Friday, July 29, 2016 at 9:00 am be vacated and continued to Friday, September 2, 2016 at 9:00 am.

This continuance is necessary as the parties are at various stages in plea negotiations and require additional time to review discovery, investigate the facts of this case, and hold discussions with the government and their respective clients in furtherance of resolution. Counsel for the government is working to produce and revise plea offers; counsel for Mr. Sharpe is in the process of obtaining documents relating to a medical diagnosis, and also looking into an appeal now pending in state court, both of which are likely to affect resolution; counsel for Harned is reviewing a proposed plea offer and needs further time to investigate and to meet with his client who is on pretrial release in Oklahoma City; and counsel for Ludwig III has received a proposed plea agreement and needs additional time to review and discuss it with his client.

The parties stipulate that the Court shall find and order: (1) 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; (2) the ends of justice to be served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial; and (3) time beginning from the parties' stipulation on July 22, 2016, up to and including the March 18, 2016, status conference shall be excluded from the computation of time within which the trial of this matter must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) and Local Code T-4, to allow defense counsel reasonable time to prepare.

I, William E. Bonham, the filing party, have received authorization from AUSA Amy Hitchcock and remaining defense counsel to sign and submit this stipulation and proposed order on their behalf.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that the status conference currently set for Friday, July 29, 2016 at 9:00 am is vacated and continued to Friday, September 2, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. Based on the stipulation of the parties, I find that the failure to grant such a continuance would deny defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. Accordingly, the time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act is excluded from the date of the parties' stipulation, July 22, 2016, up to and including the date of the new status conference, September 2, 2016, pursuant to Local Code T4 and 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv). I specifically find that the ends of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and defendants in a speedy trial within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h) (7)(A) and (B)(iv) and Local Code T-4.

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