Filed: Sep. 05, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 05, 2019
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER BARBARA A. McAULIFFE , Magistrate Judge . STIPULATION 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on September 9, 2019. 2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until September 23, 2019, and to exclude time between September 9, 2019, and September 23, 2019. 3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following: a) The governme
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER BARBARA A. McAULIFFE , Magistrate Judge . STIPULATION 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on September 9, 2019. 2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until September 23, 2019, and to exclude time between September 9, 2019, and September 23, 2019. 3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following: a) The governmen..
More
STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER
BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.
STIPULATION
1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on September 9, 2019.
2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until September 23, 2019, and to exclude time between September 9, 2019, and September 23, 2019.
3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:
a) The government has represented that it has previously provided over one thousand pages of discovery, consisting of criminal histories, police reports, legal process, photographs from search warrants, videos from police-worn body cameras, cell phone extraction reports, and other multimedia.
b) The government has also conveyed plea offers to each defendant.
c) Counsel for defendants desire additional time to review the discovery, discuss the discovery with their clients, seek additional discovery from the government, and research and discuss a resolution with their clients and the government.
d) Counsel for defendants believe that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny them the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
e) The government does not object to the continuance.
f) 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.
g) 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 September 9, 2019 to September 23, 2019, 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.
h) In addition, on August 16, 2019, defendant Enrique Lopez filed a Motion for Discovery. The hearing on the Motion for Discovery is currently set for September 23, 2019. Therefore, for purposes of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, the time period from the date on which Lopez filed the motion until the conclusion of the hearing on, or other prompt disposition of, such motion is deemed excludable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1).
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: September 4, 2019. MCGREGOR W. SCOTT
United States Attorney
/s/ROSS PEARSON
ROSS PEARSON
Assistant United States Attorney
Dated: September 4, 2019. /s/ERIC V. KERSTEN
ERIC V. KERSTEN
Counsel for Defendant
Victor Bravo
(Authorized by email on September 4,
2019)
Dated: September 5, 2019. /s/DANIEL L. HARRALSON
DANIEL L. HARRALSON
Counsel for Defendant
Moises Misael Garcia DeLeon
(Authorized by email on September 5,
2019)
Dated: September 4, 2019. /s/W. SCOTT QUINLAN
W. SCOTT QUINLAN
Counsel for Defendant
Enrique Argueta Lopez
(Authorized by email on September 4,
2019)
Dated: September 4, 2019. /s/JOHN F. GARLAND
JOHN F. GARLAND
Counsel for Defendant
Robert Zavala
(Authorized by email on September 4,
2019)
Dated: September 4, 2019. /s/PETER M. JONES
PETER M. JONES
Counsel for Defendant
Cesar Lemus
(Authorized by email on September 4,
2019)
Dated: September 4, 2019. /s/DALE A. BLICKENSTAFF
DALE A. BLICKENSTAFF
Counsel for Defendant
Jesus Jose Robledo
(Authorized by email on September 4,
2019)
FINDINGS AND ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED that the 2nd Status Conference is continued from September 9, 2019 to September 23, 2019 at 1:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. Time is excluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 3161(h)(7)(A), B(iv).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
