Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Washington, 2:16-cr-279-JAD-PAL. (2017)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20170609f09 Visitors: 6
Filed: Jun. 08, 2017
Latest Update: Jun. 08, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE MOTION DATES ONLY (Third Request) JENNIFER A. DORSEY , District Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Steven W. Myhre, Acting United States Attorney, and Robert Knief., Assistant United States Attorney, counsel for the United Stated of America, and Rene L. Valladares, Federal Public Defender, and Rebecca A. Levy, Assistant Federal Public Defender, counsel for Joshua Sadat Washington, and Christopher Oram, counsel for Fedel Ezekiel Sakers that th
More

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE MOTION DATES ONLY

(Third Request)

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Steven W. Myhre, Acting United States Attorney, and Robert Knief., Assistant United States Attorney, counsel for the United Stated of America, and Rene L. Valladares, Federal Public Defender, and Rebecca A. Levy, Assistant Federal Public Defender, counsel for Joshua Sadat Washington, and Christopher Oram, counsel for Fedel Ezekiel Sakers that the parties herein shall have to and including June 29, 2017, 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 July 6, 2017 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 July 13, 2017, to file any and all replies to dispositive motions.

The Stipulation is entered into for the following reasons:

1. Both defendants are in custody but do not oppose the continuance.

2. Since the filing of the previous stipulation counsels for the defendants have been diligent in case preparation. However, additional time is needed to allow the respective counsels for the defendants sufficient time to review recently received discovery.

3. Denial of this request for continuance would deny counsels for the defendants sufficient time to effectively and thoroughly prepare, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

4. 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, § 3161(h)(7)(A), considering the factors under Title 18, United States Code §§ 3161(h)(7)(B).

This is the third stipulation to continue 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. Both defendants are in custody but do not oppose the continuance.

2. Since the filing of the previous stipulation counsels for the defendants have been diligent in case preparation. However, additional time is needed to allow the respective counsels for the defendants sufficient time to review recently received discovery.

3. Denial of this request for continuance would deny counsels for the defendants sufficient time to effectively and thoroughly prepare and submit pretrial motions and notices of defense, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

4. 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, § 3161(h)(7)(A), considering the factors under Title 18, United States Code §§ 3161(h)(7)(B).

This is the third stipulation to continue 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, Section § 3161 (h)(7)(A), when the considering the factors under Title 18, United States Code, § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i), (iv).

ORDER

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties herein shall have until June 29, 2017 to file any and all pretrial motions and notice of defense.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the parties shall have to and including July 6, 2017 to file any all responses.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the parties shall have to and including July 13, 2017 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