Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Ramirez, 1:17-CR-00207-LJO-SKO. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20180503e13 Visitors: 19
Filed: May 02, 2018
Latest Update: May 02, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION TO MOVE MOTION HEARING DATE AND TO EXCLUDE TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , Chief District Judge . STIPULATION Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through defendant's counsel of record, stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for a motion hearing on June 11, 2018. Since that date was selected government counsel has become unavailable due to a need to attend a program away f
More

STIPULATION TO MOVE MOTION HEARING DATE AND TO EXCLUDE TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

STIPULATION

Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through defendant's counsel of record, stipulate as follows:

1. By previous order, this matter was set for a motion hearing on June 11, 2018. Since that date was selected government counsel has become unavailable due to a need to attend a program away from Fresno.

2. By this stipulation, the parties have agreed to reschedule the hearing on defendant's motion to June 18, 2018. The parties agree that the deadline for filing the defendant's optional reply brief is extended to June 11, 2018. The parties have also agreed to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act through the next hearing on June 18, 2018, based on 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(1)(D), (h)(7)(A), (h)(7)(B)(i) and (iv).

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER ON STIPULATION TO CONTINUE MOTION HEARING DATE AND TO EXCLUDE TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on motions and trial scheduling for this case be reset for June 18, 2018, at 8:30 am.

Any reply brief by the defendant must be filed by June 11, 2018.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time period of February 5, 2018, through June 18, 2018, inclusive, is deemed excludable under 18 U.S.C. § § 3161(h)(1)(D), (h)(7)(A), (h)(7)(B)(i) and (iv) because it results from a continuance granted by the court at the parties' 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.

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