Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Hebert, 2:14-cr-00140-MCE. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20160812893 Visitors: 3
Filed: Aug. 08, 2016
Latest Update: Aug. 08, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr. , District Judge . Defendant Richard Hebert, by and through Linda M. Parisi, his counsel of record, and plaintiff, by and through its counsel, Matthew G. Morris, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on August 11, 2016. 2. By this stipulation, the defendant now moves to continue the status conference until August 25, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. and to ex
More

STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; ORDER

Defendant Richard Hebert, by and through Linda M. Parisi, his counsel of record, and plaintiff, by and through its counsel, Matthew G. Morris, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on August 11, 2016.

2. By this stipulation, the defendant now moves to continue the status conference until August 25, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. and to exclude time between August 11, 2016 and August 25, 2016 and under Local Code T4. The United States does not oppose this request.

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

a. The United States Attorney and Counsel for Mr. Hebert need additional time to consult and to review and discuss the plea agreement.

b. Counsel for defendant Mr. Hebert believe that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny them the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

d. The United States Attorney agrees to the continuance.

e. All counsel agrees to the continuance.

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 August 11, 2016 and August 25, 2016, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 316l(h)(7)(A), B(iv) [Local CodeT4] because it results from a continuance granted by the Court at 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 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.

ORDER

Based on the reasons set forth in the stipulation of the parties filed on August 8, 2016, and good cause appearing therefrom, the Court adopts the stipulation of the parties in its entirety. It is hereby ordered that the status conference currently set for August 11, 2016, be vacated and that a status conference be set for August 25, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. The Court finds that the ends of justice to be served by granting a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that, for the reasons stated in the parties' August 8, 2016 stipulation, the time within which the trial of this matter must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act is excluded during the time period of August 11, 2016 and August 25, 2016, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) and Local Code 25.

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