Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Walker, 2:17-CR-00126 MCE. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20190807797 Visitors: 10
Filed: Aug. 05, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 05, 2019
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE; ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. , District Judge . The defendant, Lashawndra Walker, by and through her counsel, Toni White, and the Government, by and through its counsel, Roger Yang, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on August 1, 2019. 2. By this stipulation, Ms. Walker now moves to continue the status conference until October 3, 2019, and to exclude time between August 1, 2019, and Oc
More

STIPULATION REGARDING CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE; ORDER

The defendant, Lashawndra Walker, by and through her counsel, Toni White, and the Government, by and through its counsel, Roger Yang, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on August 1, 2019.

2. By this stipulation, Ms. Walker now moves to continue the status conference until October 3, 2019, and to exclude time between August 1, 2019, and October 3, 2019, under Local Code T4.

3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:

a) Counsel for the defendant and counsel for the Government have been working towards resolution of this matter. Defense counsel and the Government have been working through loss issues and a meeting was had between defense counsel, the Government and the case agent to discuss loss calculation. Subsequent information as to loss has been exchanged and more is scheduled to be provided. Discovery in this matter stands at 11,967 Bates stamped pages. There are also 3 audio CDs. Defense counsel needs time to continue reviewing discovery, to continue to consult with her client, to review the current charges, to conduct investigation and research related to the charges and to discuss potential resolutions with her client and otherwise prepare for trial. b) Defense counsel believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny her 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 continuing the case as requested outweigh the interest of the public and the defendant in a trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act. e) 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 August 1, 2019 to October 3, 2019, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 3161(h)(7)(A), B(iv) [Local Code T4] 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.

Dated: July 30, 2019. McGREGOR W. SCOTT United States Attorney By: /s/ Toni White for ROGER YANG Assistant U.S. Attorney For the United States July 30, 2019. By: /s/ Toni White TONI WHITE For Defendant Lashawndra Walker

ORDER

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