Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. CUEVAS, 1:16 CR 00026 LJO-SKO. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20161107869 Visitors: 13
Filed: Nov. 04, 2016
Latest Update: Nov. 04, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE SHEILA K. OBERTO , Magistrate Judge . It is hereby stipulated and agreed to between the United States of America through Brian K. Delaney, Assistant United States Attorney; defendant ADOLFO CUEVAS JR, by and through his counsel, Adam M. Koppekin, and JESSE MERAZ, by and through his counsel, Nicholas Capozzi, and MARTIN PATINO JR, by and through his counsel Kevin Little, that the Second Status Conference presently scheduled for November 7,
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE

It is hereby stipulated and agreed to between the United States of America through Brian K. Delaney, Assistant United States Attorney; defendant ADOLFO CUEVAS JR, by and through his counsel, Adam M. Koppekin, and JESSE MERAZ, by and through his counsel, Nicholas Capozzi, and MARTIN PATINO JR, by and through his counsel Kevin Little, that the Second Status Conference presently scheduled for November 7, 2016 be acated and rescheduled for Second Status Conference on January 30, 2017 at 1:00.P.M.

Parties have been negotiating a settlement and need additional time. Counsel for ADOLFO CUEVAS JR. is expecting a proposed plea agreement within the next 7-10 days. Both government and defense are requesting a continuance.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that; (1) the period from the date of the signing of the partie's stipulation, November 2, 2016, ato and including the new status conference hearing date of January 30, 2017, shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial in this matter must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(A) and (B) (iv) and Local Code T4 as the failure to grant the requested continuance would deny defendant ADOLFO CUEVAS JR. continuity of defense counsel and deny both defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence; and (2) the ends of justice served by the granting of such a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.

ORDER

The Court, having received, read, and considered the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing there from, adopts the stipulation of the parties in its entirety as its order. Based on the representation of the parties and good cause appearing there from, the Court hereby finds that the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny defendant ADOLFO CUEVAS JR. continuity of counsel and both defense counsels reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 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. It is ordered that time beginning from the parties stipulation on November 2, 2016 up to and including the January 30, 2017, second Status conference shall be excluded from 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 defendant ADOLFO CUEVAS JR. continuity of counsel and both defense counsels reasonable time to prepare.

The Court also notes that the indictment was filed on February 25, 2016, and the arraignments took place on March 2, 2016. In the event that the parties are unable to resolve this case before the next hearing, they shall meet and confer regarding a mutually agreeable trial date, and a trial date will be set before Chief District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on January 30, 2017.

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