U.S. v. Capenhurst, 2:18-cr-0055-KJM. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20181220956
Visitors: 1
Filed: Dec. 19, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 19, 2018
Summary: ORDER RE: GOVERNMENT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO STAY TRIAL PROCEEDINGS ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . Plaintiff United States of America has moved to stay proceedings in this Court pending issuance of the Ninth Circuit's mandate on the government's interlocutory appeal in United States v. Capenhurst, et al., no. 18-10458. Defendants Capenhurst and McGraw do not oppose this request. For good cause shown, and based on the reasons set forth in the government's motion, IT IS HEREBY
Summary: ORDER RE: GOVERNMENT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO STAY TRIAL PROCEEDINGS ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . Plaintiff United States of America has moved to stay proceedings in this Court pending issuance of the Ninth Circuit's mandate on the government's interlocutory appeal in United States v. Capenhurst, et al., no. 18-10458. Defendants Capenhurst and McGraw do not oppose this request. For good cause shown, and based on the reasons set forth in the government's motion, IT IS HEREBY O..
More
ORDER RE: GOVERNMENT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO STAY TRIAL PROCEEDINGS
ORDER
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.
Plaintiff United States of America has moved to stay proceedings in this Court pending issuance of the Ninth Circuit's mandate on the government's interlocutory appeal in United States v. Capenhurst, et al., no. 18-10458. Defendants Capenhurst and McGraw do not oppose this request. For good cause shown, and based on the reasons set forth in the government's motion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that further proceedings in this matter are STAYED until issuance of the Ninth Circuit's mandate in United States v. Capenhurst, et al., no. 18-10458.
The Court further finds that the period of time from November 27, 2018 (when the government filed its notice of appeal), to the date of the issuance of the Ninth Circuit's mandate on the government's appeal in 18-10458 is deemed excludable, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(C), because it constitutes delay resulting from an interlocutory appeal.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
