Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Turcios, 2:15-MJ-00108 AC. (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20170424940 Visitors: 10
Filed: Apr. 20, 2017
Latest Update: Apr. 20, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING PURSUANT TO RULE 5.1(d) AND EXCLUSION OF TIME UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT CURRENT PRELIMINARY HEARING DATE: April 28, 2017 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY HEARING DATE: June 9, 2017. ALLISON CLAIRE , Magistrate Judge . STIPULATION Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant DAVID A. TURCIOS, by and through defendant's counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was
More

STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING PURSUANT TO RULE 5.1(d) AND EXCLUSION OF TIME UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

CURRENT PRELIMINARY HEARING DATE: April 28, 2017 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY HEARING DATE: June 9, 2017.

STIPULATION

Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant DAVID A. TURCIOS, by and through defendant's counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. By previous order, this matter was set for a preliminary hearing on April 28, 2017.

2. By this stipulation, the parties now move to continue the preliminary hearing date until June 9, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. before the duty United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to Rule 5.1(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and seek an Order from this Court excluding time until that date. The parties stipulate that the delay is required to allow the defense reasonable time for preparation, specifically, conducting legal and factual research, and examining case files. The government sent discovery materials to defendant and defense counsel on August 20 and 25, 2015, October 27, 2015, April 19, 2016, and June 3, 8 and 23, 2016, as well as various email and telephone exchanges of case relevant information and a personal meeting, and defense counsel will need time to review said discovery and conduct related case preparation. Furthermore, defendant was unavailable during the summer of 2016 for a six week period due to participation in a program. Moreover, defense counsel was recently involved in unrelated trial matters that required his attention to those matters. Finally, the parties were exploring a potential pre-indictment resolution of this case.

3. The parties stipulate, and would ask the Court to so find, that, 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 an information or indictment being filed within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

4. The parties agree that good cause exists for the extension of time and that the extension would not adversely affect the public interest in the prompt disposition of criminal cases. Therefore, the parties request that the time between April 28, 2017 (current date for the preliminary hearing), and June 9, 2017 (new date of the preliminary hearing), be excluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv), Local Code T-4.

5. 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 an information or indictment must be filed.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

[PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER

IT IS SO FOUND AND 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