Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

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

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20171128826 Visitors: 17
Filed: Nov. 22, 2017
Latest Update: Nov. 22, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING FOR MOTION TO ENJOIN PROSECUTION JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . STIPULATION Plaintiff, United States of America, 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 vacate the date set for hearing on the Teri Schell's motion to enjoin prosecution, J
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING FOR MOTION TO ENJOIN PROSECUTION

STIPULATION

Plaintiff, United States of America, 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 vacate the date set for hearing on the Teri Schell's motion to enjoin prosecution, January 9, 2018 at 9:15 a.m., in the above-captioned matter, and to continue the hearing to January 16, 2018 at 9:15 a.m. in the courtroom of the Honorable John A. Mendez.

The reason for this request is that Ms. Radekin has a conflict with the date currently set for hearing that arose after the filing of the last stipulation—the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit set oral argument on January 9, 2018 in San Francisco on one of Ms. Radekin's pending appeals. The date for oral argument cannot now be changed. The Court is advised that Mr. Broderick and Mr. Duree concur with this request and that both counsel have authorized Ms. Radekin to sign this stipulation on their behalf.

The parties further agree and stipulate that the time period from the filing of this stipulation through conclusion of the hearing, or other prompt disposition, of the motion to enjoin prosecution should be excluded in computing time for commencement of trial under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D). The parties also agree and stipulate such exclusion is necessary to allow both the United States and the defense reasonable time for effective preparation under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv) and Local Code T4. It is further agreed and stipulated that the ends of justice served in granting the request outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Accordingly, the parties respectfully request the Court adopt this proposed stipulation.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

For the reasons set forth in the accompanying stipulation and declaration of counsel, the date set for the motion to enjoin prosecution, January 9, 2018 at 9:15 a.m. is VACATED and the above-captioned matter is set for hearing on this motion on January 16, 2018 at 9:15 a.m. The Court finds excludable time in this matter through January 16, 2018 or other disposition of the motion to enjoin prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D), (h)(7)(B)(iv) and Local Code T4, through disposition of the motion and to allow reasonable time necessary for effective defense preparation. For the reasons stipulated by the parties, the Court finds that the interest of justice served by granting the request outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A), (h)(7)(B)(iv).

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