Filed: May 29, 2014
Latest Update: May 29, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME FROM THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT CALCULATION (18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(A)) JON S. TIGAR, District Judge. The Court held a status conference in this matter on May 23, 2014. Defendant Akolo was not present at the status conference due to medical issues. The government represented that it has produced some discovery in the case and will continue that production in the coming weeks. The government also noted that there is a voluminous amount of discovery in
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME FROM THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT CALCULATION (18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(A)) JON S. TIGAR, District Judge. The Court held a status conference in this matter on May 23, 2014. Defendant Akolo was not present at the status conference due to medical issues. The government represented that it has produced some discovery in the case and will continue that production in the coming weeks. The government also noted that there is a voluminous amount of discovery in ..
More
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME FROM THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT CALCULATION (18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A))
JON S. TIGAR, District Judge.
The Court held a status conference in this matter on May 23, 2014. Defendant Akolo was not present at the status conference due to medical issues. The government represented that it has produced some discovery in the case and will continue that production in the coming weeks. The government also noted that there is a voluminous amount of discovery in the case. The parties agreed that excluding time would be appropriate to allow the government additional time to produce the remaining discovery and to allow defense counsel time to review it.
With the agreement of the parties, and with the consent of the defendants, the Court enters this order setting a status conference on May 30, 2014, and documenting the exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, from May 23, 2014, through May 30, 2014.
The parties agree, and the Court finds and holds, as follows:
1. The defendant is currently in custody.
2. Given the need for additional time for the government to produce discovery, the defendant agrees to an exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv) to provide reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The defendant agrees to this exclusion on the condition that his right to bring motions claiming Speedy Trial Act violations prior to May 23, 2014, shall remain preserved.
3. Counsel for the defendant believes that the exclusion of time is in her clients' best interest.
4. Given these circumstances, the Court finds that the ends of justice served by excluding the period from May 23, 2014, through May 30, 2014, outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).
5. Accordingly, and with the consent of the defendant, the Court orders that the period from May 23, 2014, through May 30, 2014, shall be excluded from Speedy Trial Act calculations under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B)(iv).
IT IS SO STIPULATED:
IT IS SO ORDERED.
