Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Sharpe, 2:14-cr-043 GEB. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20160929902 Visitors: 7
Filed: Sep. 27, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 27, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr. , Senior District Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Phillip A. Talbert, Acting U.S. Attorney, through James Conolly, Assistant United States Attorney, attorney for Plaintiff, and Heather Williams, Federal Defender, through Assistant Federal Defender Benjamin D. Galloway, attorney for Joseph Sharpe, and attorneys, William Bonham, counsel for Donald Loyde Harned; and Dustin Johnson, counsel for
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Phillip A. Talbert, Acting U.S. Attorney, through James Conolly, Assistant United States Attorney, attorney for Plaintiff, and Heather Williams, Federal Defender, through Assistant Federal Defender Benjamin D. Galloway, attorney for Joseph Sharpe, and attorneys, William Bonham, counsel for Donald Loyde Harned; and Dustin Johnson, counsel for Edwin Forrest Ludwig, III, that the status conference scheduled for September 30, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., be vacated and the matter continued to November 4, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., for further status conference.

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 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 and to meet with his client; and counsel for Ludwig, III received a proposed plea agreement and further time is needed to meet with his client and conduct investigation based thereon. Based on this understanding, counsel for the government does not object to the continuance.

Based upon the foregoing, the parties agree time under the Speedy Trial Act should be excluded of this order's date through and including November 4, 2016; pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161 (h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv)[reasonable time to prepare] and General Order 479, Local Code T4 based upon continuity of counsel and defense preparation.

Counsel and the defendants also agree that the ends of justice served by the Court granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, the Court, having received, read, and considered the parties' stipulation, and good cause appearing therefrom, adopts the parties' stipulation in its entirety as its order. The Court specifically finds the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court finds the ends of justice are served by granting the requested continuance and outweigh the best interests of the public and defendants in a speedy trial.

The Court orders the time from the date the parties stipulated, up to and including November 4, 2016, shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and(B)(iv) [reasonable time for counsel to prepare] and General Order 479, (Local Code T4). It is further ordered the September 30, 2016 status conference shall be continued until November 4, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.

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