Filed: Mar. 21, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 21, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE THE STATUS CONFERENCE GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. , Senior District Judge . STIPULATION The United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Michael Beckwith, Assistant United States Attorney, together with Patrick K. Hanly, counsel for Chi Meng Yang, and Thomas A. Johnson, counsel for Gaosheng Laitinen, hereby stipulate the following: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for Status Conference on March 23, 2018. 2. By this stipulat
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE THE STATUS CONFERENCE GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. , Senior District Judge . STIPULATION The United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Michael Beckwith, Assistant United States Attorney, together with Patrick K. Hanly, counsel for Chi Meng Yang, and Thomas A. Johnson, counsel for Gaosheng Laitinen, hereby stipulate the following: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for Status Conference on March 23, 2018. 2. By this stipulati..
More
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE THE STATUS CONFERENCE
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR., Senior District Judge.
STIPULATION
The United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Michael Beckwith,
Assistant United States Attorney, together with Patrick K. Hanly, counsel for Chi Meng Yang, and Thomas A. Johnson, counsel for Gaosheng Laitinen, hereby stipulate the following:
1. By previous order, this matter was set for Status Conference on March 23, 2018.
2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the Status Conference to April 27, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. and to exclude time between March 23, 2018, and, April 27, 2018, under the Local Code T-4 (to allow defense counsel time to prepare).
3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request the Court find the following:
a. A continuance is requested because attorneys for the defendants need additional time to review the discovery, conduct investigation, and discuss a potential resolution.
b. Attorneys for defendants believe the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
c. The Government does not object to the continuance.
d. Based on the above-stated findings, the ends of justice served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act.
e. For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 United States Code Section 3161(h)(7)(A) within which trial must commence, the time period of March 23, 2018, to April 27, 2018, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 United States Code Section 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv), corresponding to Local Code T-4 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.
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.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
