Filed: Oct. 18, 2016
Latest Update: Oct. 18, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; [PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE TO 1/27/17 AT 9:00 A.M. GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr. , District Judge . STIPULATION Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, Roger Yang, and Defendants Richard Phung, represented by Attorney Dina Santos; Defendant Su Qing Li, represented by Attorney Mark Jeffery Rosenblum, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; [PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE TO 1/27/17 AT 9:00 A.M. GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr. , District Judge . STIPULATION Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, Roger Yang, and Defendants Richard Phung, represented by Attorney Dina Santos; Defendant Su Qing Li, represented by Attorney Mark Jeffery Rosenblum, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for ..
More
STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; [PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE TO 1/27/17 AT 9:00 A.M.
GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., District Judge.
STIPULATION
Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, Roger Yang, and Defendants Richard Phung, represented by Attorney Dina Santos; Defendant Su Qing Li, represented by Attorney Mark Jeffery Rosenblum, hereby stipulate as follows:
1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on October 21, 2016.
2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until January 27, 2017, and to exclude time between October 21, 2016, and January 21, 2017 under Local Code T4. Plaintiff does not oppose this request.
3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:
a) Counsel for defendants desire additional time to review discovery, continue to conduct investigation, and to otherwise prepare for trial. Counsel for defendants 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.
b) The government does not object to the continuance.
c) Based on the above-stated findings, the ends of justice served by continuing the case as requested outweigh the interest of the public and the defendant in a trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act.
d) 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 October 21, 2016, to January 27, 2017, 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 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 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.
ORDER
IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED.
