Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Zhu, 2:18-CR-00198 MCE. (2020)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20200212641 Visitors: 12
Filed: Feb. 11, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 11, 2020
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. , 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, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on February 13, 2020. On the Court's own motion and due to the availability of the Judge, the February 13, 2020, status conference was vacated and continued to June 25,
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE

STIPULATION

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

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on February 13, 2020. On the Court's own motion and due to the availability of the Judge, the February 13, 2020, status conference was vacated and continued to June 25, 2020, at 10:00 a.m.

2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to exclude time between February 13, 2020 and June 25, 2020, under Local Code T4.

3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following: a) The discovery associated with this case initially included thousands of pages of investigative reports, bank and business records, real estate records, and audiovisual material. All of this discovery had been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying. On April 16, 2019, the Court ordered this case related with Case Nos. 2:18-cr-134 and 2:18-cr-258. As a result, the government produced all of the discovery from those related cases to counsel in this case. That discovery includes approximately 2,924,548 pages of email records, investigative reports, and other items obtained during the investigation.

b) Counsel for defendant requires additional time to review the charges, consult with his client, review this discovery with his client, and otherwise to prepare for trial.

c) Counsel for defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny him/her the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

d) The government does not object to the continuance.

e) 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.

f) 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 February 13, 2020, and June 25, 2020, 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: February 6, 2020 MCGREGOR W. SCOTT United States Attorney /s/Roger Yang ROGER YANG Assistant United States Attorney Dated: February 6, 2020 /s/David Fischer David Fischer Counsel for Defendant Daniel Zhu

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