Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Thompson, 2:13-cr-368-JAD-NJK. (2016)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20160915g86 Visitors: 10
Filed: Sep. 14, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 14, 2016
Summary: AMENDED STIPULATION TO CONTINUE MOTION DEADLINES (Ninth Request) JENNIFER A. DORSEY , District Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Daniel G. Bogden, United States Attorney, and Lisa Cartier-Giroux, Assistant United States Attorney, counsel for the United States of America, and Rene L. Valladares, Federal Public Defender, and Brenda Weksler, Assistant Federal Public Defender, counsel for William C. Thompson, and John Patrick Dolan, counsel for David Yoder, that the Mot
More

AMENDED STIPULATION TO CONTINUE MOTION DEADLINES (Ninth Request)

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Daniel G. Bogden, United States Attorney, and Lisa Cartier-Giroux, Assistant United States Attorney, counsel for the United States of America, and Rene L. Valladares, Federal Public Defender, and Brenda Weksler, Assistant Federal Public Defender, counsel for William C. Thompson, and John Patrick Dolan, counsel for David Yoder, that the Motion deadlines currently scheduled for September 9, 2016 be vacated and set to a date and time convenient to this court, but no sooner than sixty (60) days.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, that the parties herein shall have to and including November 9, 2016, to file any and all pretrial motions and notices of defense.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties, that they shall have to and including November 23, 2016, to file any and all responsive pleadings.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties, that they shall have to and including November 30, 2016, to file any and all replies to dispositive motions.

The Stipulation is entered into for the following reasons:

1. The clients are in custody and do not oppose the continuance.

2. Counsel for the defendant David Yoder was recently appointed to the case and needs additional time to review and investigate the discovery in this case.

3. The parties agree to the continuance.

4. The additional time requested herein is not sought for purposes of delay, but merely to allow counsel for the defendants sufficient time within which to be able to effectively and complete investigation of the discovery materials provided.

5. Additionally, denial of this request for continuance could result in a miscarriage of justice. The additional time requested by this stipulation is excludable in computing the time within which the trial herein must commence pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, Title 18, United States Code, § 3161(h)(1)(D) and Title 18, United States Code, § 3161(h)(7)(A), considering the factors under Title 18, United States Code §§ 3161(h)(7)(B) and 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

6. This is the ninth stipulation to continue trial filed herein.

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based on the pending Stipulation of counsel, and good cause appearing therefore, the Court finds that:

1. The clients are in custody and do not oppose the continuance.

2. Counsel for the defendant David Yoder was recently appointed to the case and needs additional time to review and investigate the discovery in this case.

3. The parties agree to the continuance.

4. The additional time requested herein is not sought for purposes of delay, but merely to allow counsel for the defendants sufficient time within which to be able to effectively and complete investigation of the discovery materials provided.

5. Additionally, denial of this request for continuance could result in a miscarriage of justice. The additional time requested by this stipulation is excludable in computing the time within which the trial herein must commence pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, Title 18, United States Code, § 3161(h)(1)(D) and Title 18, United States Code, § 3161(h)(7)(A), considering the factors under Title 18, United States Code §§ 3161(h)(7)(B) and 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

6. This is the eighth stipulation to continue trial filed herein.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The ends of justice served by granting said continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, since the failure to grant said continuance would be likely to result in a miscarriage of justice, would deny the parties herein sufficient time and the opportunity within which to be able to effectively and thoroughly prepare for trial, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

The continuance sought herein is excusable under the Speedy Trial Act, Title 18, United States Code, § 3161(h)(1)(D) and Title 18, United States Code, § 3161(h)(7)(A), considering the factors under Title 18, United States Code §§ 3161(h)(7)(B) and 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

ORDER

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties herein shall have till November 9, 2016 to file any and all pretrial motions and notice of defense.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall have to and including November 23, 2016 to file any all responses.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall have to and including November 30, 2016 to file any and all replies.

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