Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Martin, 2:17-cr-059 TLN. (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20171006p08 Visitors: 6
Filed: Sep. 28, 2017
Latest Update: Sep. 28, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Phillip A. Talbert, United States Attorney through Shelley D. Weger, Assistant United States Attorney, attorney for Plaintiff, and Heather Williams, Federal Defender, through Assistant Federal Defender Lexi P. Negin, attorneys for Kevin Martin, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for a status conference on October 12, 2017. 2. By t
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Phillip A. Talbert, United States Attorney through Shelley D. Weger, Assistant United States Attorney, attorney for Plaintiff, and Heather Williams, Federal Defender, through Assistant Federal Defender Lexi P. Negin, attorneys for Kevin Martin, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. By previous order, this matter was set for a status conference on October 12, 2017.

2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until December 7, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., and to exclude time between October 12, 2017, and December 7, 2017, under Local Code T4.

3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request the Court to find the following:

a. The government has produced directly to defense counsel over 1450 pages of discovery as well as audio and video recordings. The government has also made additional discovery, which contains material restricted by 18 U.S.C. § 3509(m) available for inspection. b. The government continues to investigate this case, and has additional discovery that it anticipates producing to defense counsel and/or making available for inspection over the next several weeks. c. Defense counsel will need time to review this additional discovery, and requires additional time to review the discovery that has previously been produced with her client, pursue further investigation, and discuss potential resolutions with her client. d. Counsel for defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny him/her the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. e. The government does not object to the continuance. f. 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. g. 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 October 12, 2017 to December 7, 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 defendant's 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.

THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK

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.

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