Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Heredia, 1:17-CR-00090 LJO SKO. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20190201804 Visitors: 8
Filed: Jan. 31, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 31, 2019
Summary: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , Chief District Judge . STIPULATION Defendant, Marcela Heredia, by and through her counsel of record, Caroline C. McCreary, and Plaintiff United States of America, Laura Withers, hereby stipulate as follows: To move the status conference currently set from February 25, 2018, to April 22, 2019 . Both parties seek a continued status to April 29, 2019, at 8:30 a.m. and move to exclude time under the speedy trial act between toda
More

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE

STIPULATION

Defendant, Marcela Heredia, by and through her counsel of record, Caroline C. McCreary, and Plaintiff United States of America, Laura Withers, hereby stipulate as follows:

To move the status conference currently set from February 25, 2018, to April 22, 2019. Both parties seek a continued status to April 29, 2019, at 8:30 a.m. and move to exclude time under the speedy trial act between today's date and April 29, 2019, for the following reasons:

1. Defense counsel's husband was facing a serious medical condition that required counsel to provide care. Following his prior surgery, his complications did not subside and an MRI image revealing a cluster of illuminated lymph nodes caused a diagnosis of lymphoma. Thereafter, additional MRI procedures, CT Scans, as well as a PET Scan to determine the origin and/or type of lymphoma. However recent blood work put the surgeon's as well as the oncologist's original diagnosis of lymphoma in question. Follow up blood work and an MRI are scheduled to confirm lymphoma was an incorrect diagnosis on March 8, 2019. Meanwhile, Marcela Heredia recently gave birth. All told, Marcella Heredia's family care obligations related to her pregnancy, recent child birth, as well as defense counsel's family obligation's, have hindered the ability to adequately discuss a resolution and/or prepare for trial. Finally, a new AUSA, Laura Withers, has just been assigned to this case. Thus, both parties have not been afforded adequate time to review the case and engage in possible settlement solutions.

2. A continuance would allow the parties, sufficient time to choose an acceptable trial date in accordance with the Speedy Trial Act, review discovery, and more importantly, engage in plea negotiations.

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 to have a trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act. 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 February 25, 2019 to April 29, 2019 for a status hearing, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 3161(h)(7)(A), (B)(iv) 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.

Nothing in this stipulation and order shall preclude a finding that other provisions of the Speedy Trial Act dictate additional time periods are excludable from the period within which a trial must commence.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

The Court finds good cause exists, accepts the stipulation, and the Status Conference of February 25, 2019 is continued to April 29, 2019, at 8:30 a.m.

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