Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Henry, 1:13-CR-00409-AWI. (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20170120805 Visitors: 2
Filed: Jan. 19, 2017
Latest Update: Jan. 19, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND MOTION HEARING DATE AND TO EXCLUDE TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT ANTHONY W. ISHII , Senior District Judge . STIPULATION Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through defendant's counsel of record, stipulate as follows: 1. By previous agreement, this matter was set for a motion and trial confirmation hearing on March 13, 2017. The parties also previously agreed to a trial date of April 2
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND MOTION HEARING DATE AND TO EXCLUDE TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

STIPULATION

Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through defendant's counsel of record, stipulate as follows:

1. By previous agreement, this matter was set for a motion and trial confirmation hearing on March 13, 2017. The parties also previously agreed to a trial date of April 25, 2017. The government, noted, however that it would notify the court and counsel if any conflict(s) developed with the new proposed trial date. The government has learned of a conflict that necessitates requesting a later trial date, and the earliest date convenient for all counsel appears to be in the middle of June 2017.

2. By this stipulation, the parties have agreed to what they hope is a final continuance of the trial date to June 14, 2017, with a trial confirmation and motions hearing date of May 8, 2017. The parties also have agreed to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act through the start of the trial on June 14, 2017, based on 18 U.S.C. § § 3161(h)(1)(D), (h)(7)(A), (h)(7)(B)(i) and (iv).

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

a) Counsel for defendant requested a continuance of the previously-agreed upon February 14, 2017, trial date, in part, to review more thoroughly evidence that the government provided and to prepare more thoroughly other aspects of the defendant's case. b) The government did not oppose the requested continuance but stated that it had not been able to confirm availability of a new trial date with all necessary people prior to the court appearance on January 9, 2017. c) The parties have been able to confer and agree upon the new requested trial start date of June 14, 2017. d) 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. e) 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 March 13, 2017 to June 14, 2017, inclusive, is deemed excludable under 18 U.S.C. § § 3161(h)(1)(D), (h)(7)(A), (h)(7)(B)(i) and (iv) because it results from a continuance granted by the court at the parties' 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.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on motions and trial confirmation for this case be scheduled for May 8, 2017, at 10:00 am.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the trial in this case be scheduled to begin on June 14, 2017, at 8:30 a.m.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time period from January 9, 2017, through June 14, 2017, inclusive, is deemed excludable under 18 U.S.C. § § 3161(h)(1)(D), (h)(7)(A), (h)(7)(B)(i) and (iv), because it results from a continuance granted by the court at the parties' 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.

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