Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. RAMSON, 2:16-CR-00113-GEB. (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20170501j38 Visitors: 21
Filed: Apr. 27, 2017
Latest Update: Apr. 27, 2017
Summary: [AMENDED] STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; [PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr. , Senior District Judge . STIPULATION 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on April 28, 2017. 2. By previous stipulation, the parties had agreed to continue the status conference to June 19, 2017. This date was in error, and the parties now correct that error by this stipulation, moving to continue the status confere
More

[AMENDED] STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; [PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER

STIPULATION

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on April 28, 2017.

2. By previous stipulation, the parties had agreed to continue the status conference to June 19, 2017. This date was in error, and the parties now correct that error by this stipulation, moving to continue the status conference to June 16, 2017.

3. By this stipulation, the parties move to continue the status conference until June 16, 2017, and to exclude time between April 28, 2017, and June 16, 2017, under Local Code T4.

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

a) The government has represented that it has produced discovery in the form of police and investigative reports, and related documents, as well as video evidence, which the defendant will need further time to review, discuss with his counsel, and pursue investigation. b) Defense counsel believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 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 April 28, 2017 to June 16, 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 defendant in a speedy trial.

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 a trial must commence.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

FINDINGS AND ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, the Court, having received, read, and considered the parties' stipulation, and good cause appearing therefore, adopts the parties' stipulation in its entirety as its order. The Court specifically finds the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court finds the ends of justice are served by granting the requested continuance and outweigh the best interests of the public and defendant in a speedy trial.

The Court orders the time from the date the parties stipulated, up to and including June 16, 2017, shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and(B)(iv) (Local Code T4). It is further ordered that the April 28, 2017 status conference shall be continued until and June 16, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.

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