IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 28, 2009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
CHARLES MCCARTY, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE AND ORDER THEREON Date: March 6, 2009 Time: 9:00 a.m.
Judge: Hon. Lawrence J. O'Neill
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective counsel, SHEILA K. OBERTO, Assistant United States Attorney, and ERIC V. KERSTEN, Assistant Federal Defender, counsel for Defendant Charles McCarty, that the date for status conference may be continued to March 6, 2009, or the soonest date thereafter that is convenient to the court. The date currently set for status conference is January 30, 2009. The requested new date is March 6, 2009.
This matter was previously continued to January 30, 2009 to allow time to gather necessary information and materials necessary to investigate Mr. McCarty's mental condition. At the time of that continuance it was anticipated that Mr. McCarty would be prepared to enter a plea agreement, set the matter for trial, or file a motion to determine Mr. McCarty's competency on January 30, 2009. However, the investigator assigned to Mr. McCarty's case left the office unexpectedly at the end of December, 2008, causing an unanticipated delay in obtaining the needed materials. As a result, the evaluation of Mr. McCarty's mental condition has not yet been completed.
Mr. McCarty suffers from brain damage related to a past stroke, and other pre-existing mental health issues also exist. At the next status conference the defense expects that it will be prepared to either enter a plea agreement, set the matter for trial, or file a motion to determine Mr. McCarty's competency.
The parties agree that the delay resulting from the continuance shall be excluded as necessary for effective defense preparation, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). For this reason, the ends of justice served by the granting of the requested continuance outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.
LAWRENCE G. BROWN Acting United States Attorney DATED: January 28, 2009 SHEILA K. OBERTO Assistant United States Attorney Attorney for Plaintiff DANIEL J. BRODERICK Federal Defender
DATED: January 28, 2009 ERIC V. KERSTEN Assistant Federal Defender Attorney for Defendant CHARLES McCARTY
Good Cause exists for the continuance. The intervening period of delay is excluded in the interests of justice pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.