Filed: May 26, 2017
Latest Update: May 26, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE CHANGE OF PLEA HEARING AND EXCLUDE TIME FROM OTHERWISE APPLICABLE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT CALCULATION RICHARD SEEBORG , District Judge . STIPULATION IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties, through undersigned counsel, that: 1. The parties appeared on May 23, 2017 at 2:30 p.m. for a status hearing which had originally been set for a change of plea hearing. Mr. Smith was represented by Ethan Balogh. Assistant United States Attorney Sarah Hawkins appe
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE CHANGE OF PLEA HEARING AND EXCLUDE TIME FROM OTHERWISE APPLICABLE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT CALCULATION RICHARD SEEBORG , District Judge . STIPULATION IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties, through undersigned counsel, that: 1. The parties appeared on May 23, 2017 at 2:30 p.m. for a status hearing which had originally been set for a change of plea hearing. Mr. Smith was represented by Ethan Balogh. Assistant United States Attorney Sarah Hawkins appea..
More
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE CHANGE OF PLEA HEARING AND EXCLUDE TIME FROM OTHERWISE APPLICABLE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT CALCULATION
RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge.
STIPULATION
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties, through undersigned counsel, that:
1. The parties appeared on May 23, 2017 at 2:30 p.m. for a status hearing which had originally been set for a change of plea hearing. Mr. Smith was represented by Ethan Balogh. Assistant United States Attorney Sarah Hawkins appeared for the government.
2. At the appearance, the parties jointly requested that the change of plea hearing be continued to June 20, 2017, a date agreed upon by the Court.
3. The parties further respectfully requested that the period from May 23, 2017, through and including June 20, 2017, should be excluded from the otherwise applicable Speedy Trial Act computation because the continuance is necessary due ongoing investigation in the case.
4. The parties concur that granting the exclusion would allow the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation of counsel and continuity of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The parties also agree that the ends of justice served by granting such an exclusion of time for the purposes of effective preparation of counsel outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Based upon the above-described Stipulation, THE COURT FINDS THAT the ends of justice served by granting a continuance from May 23, 2017 to June 20, 2017 outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, and that failure to grant such a continuance would unreasonably deny the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
Accordingly, THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The parties shall appear before the Court on June 20, 2017 at 2:30 p.m. for a change of plea.
2. The period from May 23, 2017 through and including June 20, 2017 is excluded from the otherwise applicable Speedy Trial Act computation, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B)(iv).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
