Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Khoonsrivong, 2:15-CR-176 TLN. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20160802a98 Visitors: 4
Filed: Aug. 01, 2016
Latest Update: Aug. 01, 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, Andr M. Espinosa, Assistant United States Attorney, together with counsel for defendant Boone B. Khoonsrivong, Matthew C. Bockmon, Esq., counsel for defendant Thongchone Vongdeng, John R. Manning, Esq., counsel for defendant Amber Collins, Erin J. Radekin, Esq., counsel for defendant Somaly Siv, Michael L. C
More

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

The United States of America through its undersigned counsel, André M. Espinosa, Assistant United States Attorney, together with counsel for defendant Boone B. Khoonsrivong, Matthew C. Bockmon, Esq., counsel for defendant Thongchone Vongdeng, John R. Manning, Esq., counsel for defendant Amber Collins, Erin J. Radekin, Esq., counsel for defendant Somaly Siv, Michael L. Chastaine, Esq., counsel for defendant Meghan Paradis, Michael B. Bigelow, Esq., counsel for defendant Vuthiya Tim, Christopher R. Cosca, Esq., counsel for defendant Sequoia Valverde, Olaf W. Hedberg, Esq., and counsel for defendant Jaffrey Brown, Todd D. Leras, Esq., hereby stipulate the following:

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status conference on August 4, 2016.

2. By this stipulation, the defendants now move to continue the status conference until September 29, 2016 and to exclude time between August 4, 2016 and September 29, 2016 under the Local Code T-4 (to allow defense counsel further time to prepare).

3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request the Court find the following:

a. On October 22, 2015, (and on subsequent dates for defendants who were arrested and arraigned afterward), the government produced approximately 47,000 pages of discovery, a disc containing audio files, and a disc containing video files. The government also made other discovery available for review at its office. On April 5, 2016, the government produced 388 pages of additional discovery. b. Counsel for the defendants need additional time to review the voluminous discovery, conduct more investigation, and interview potential witnesses. c. Counsel for the defendants believe 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. d. The government does not object to the continuance. e. 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 defendants in a speedy trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act. f. 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 August 4, 2016, to September 29, 2016, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 United States Code Section 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv), corresponding to Local Code T-4 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 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 this 1st day of August, 2016.

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