Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Schell, 2:14-CR-00325-JAM. (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20170130675 Visitors: 23
Filed: Jan. 27, 2017
Latest Update: Jan. 27, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION and ORDER CONTINUING DATES REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO ENJOIN PROSECUTION JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD HEREIN: STIPULATION The United States, by and through its counsel, Assistant United States Attorney Gregory T. Broderick, defendant, David Schell, by and through his counsel, John R. Duree, Jr., and defendant, Teri Schell, by and through her counsel, Erin J. Radekin, agree and stipulate to continue the dates relat
More

STIPULATION and ORDER CONTINUING DATES REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO ENJOIN PROSECUTION

TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD HEREIN: STIPULATION

The United States, by and through its counsel, Assistant United States Attorney Gregory T. Broderick, defendant, David Schell, by and through his counsel, John R. Duree, Jr., and defendant, Teri Schell, by and through her counsel, Erin J. Radekin, agree and stipulate to continue the dates related to Plaintiff Terry Schell's motion to enjoin prosecution. At the December 6, 2016 status conference, this Court set a briefing schedule requiring defense Motions to be filed by 1/19/2017, responses due by 1/31/2017, replies due by 2/10/2017, and a hearing date set for February 21, 2017. (See Dkt. No. 50). Lead counsel for the United States, Josh Sigal, has since departed this office and undersigned counsel has taken over the file. Prior to appearing in this action (Dkt. No. 51), undersigned counsel for the United States had no familiarity with, or knowledge of, this action.

To provide the United States with sufficient time to familiarize himself with the discovery and respond to the motion, the parties agree and stipulate to continue the dates by approximately two weeks. Responses to the motion would be due on or before February 13, 2017, any replies due by February 21, 2017, and the hearing continued to February 28, 2017.

The parties agree that time should continue to be excluded under Local Code E (pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D)) through the conclusion of the hearing on, or other prompt disposition of, this motion. In addition, the parties agree that time is excludable under Local Code T4 (pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B)(iv)) to permit the United States time for effective preparation. New counsel was recently assigned to this matter when prior counsel left the office, and the extension is required to permit time for his effective preparation and to permit time for the Court to consider and rule on his pretrial motions. Failure to permit the new attorney for the United States the additional time would deny counsel for the defendant United States the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. Thus, the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

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

a. Prior counsel for the United States has recently left the United States Attorney's Office, and new counsel has recently appeared for the United States;

b. Prior to his appearance, undersigned counsel had no familiarity with, or knowledge of, this action;

c. On January 19, 2017, defendant Terri Schell filed certain pretrial motions for the Court's determination.

d. The parties have agreed and stipulated to the following briefing schedule concerning the motions filed by defendant Terri Schell on January 19, 2017:

i. The United States' opposition shall be filed no later than February 13, 2017; ii. Defendants shall file any reply no later than February 21, 2017;

e. The Court will hear argument on the motions, if necessary, on February 28, 2017.

f. The Court requires adequate time to consider and rule upon the pretrial motions filed by defendant Terri Schell;

g. 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.

h. For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq., time is excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D) (Local Code E) through the conclusion of the hearing on, or other prompt disposition of, this motion, as well as under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B)(iv) (Local Code T4) because it results from a continuance granted by the Court at United States' 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.

2. 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.

3. Nothing in this stipulation and order shall preclude either party from seeking leave of the Court to amend or modify the briefing schedule set forth herein. Accordingly, the parties respectfully request the Court adopt this proposed stipulation.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

The parties' stipulation is approved and SO ORDERED. Concerning the pretrial motions filed by defendant Terri Schell on January 19, 2017, the United States shall file any opposition no later than February 13, 2017; and defendants shall file any reply no later than February 21, 2017. The Court will hear argument on the motions, if necessary, on February 28, 2017.

Further, for purposes of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq., time is excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D) (Local Code E) through the conclusion of the hearing on, or other prompt disposition of, this motion, as well as under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B)(iv) (Local Code T4) for that same period because it results from a continuance granted by the Court at United States' request on the basis that the Court finds that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, and the Court adopts the findings of fact as requested, and as set forth in, the stipulation.

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