IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 18, 2009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
GREGORY PAUL STYLES, AND MARVIN MITCHELL FREEMAN, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Honorable Lawrence J. O'Neill
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE HEARING, AND ORDER THEREON
Date: May 1, 2009
Time: 9:00 a.m.
It is hereby stipulated by and among the parties that the status conference hearing in the above-entitled matter now set for March 20, 2009, may be continued to May 1, 2009, at 9:00 a.m.
Defense counsel requests this continuance to allow additional time for defense preparation and for continuity of counsel. As this court knows, Mr. Styles was initially represented by Assistant Federal Defender Marc Ament. Due to unanticipated medical issues, the case was reassigned to Assistant Federal Defender Francine Zepeda; however, a large portion of Ms. Zepeda's time is occupied by the case of U.S, v. Zablan, in which the government is seeking the death penalty. In addition, Ms. Zepeda is handling many administrative duties in during Mr. Ament's absence. For these reasons, Mr. Styles' case was again reassigned within the office of the Federal Defender. This case is a complex, white collar case with an extensive amount of discovery. Undersigned counsel needs additional time to review the discovery, familiarize himself with the legal issues presented and confer with Mr. Stlyes prior to determining how to proceed in this matter. For these reasons a continuance is necessary. Both defendants are out of custody.
The parties agree that time shall be excluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(8)(A) and (B), in that the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, since the failure to grant such a continuance would deny counsel for the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
ORDER IT IS SO ORDERED.
Time is excluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(8)(A) and (B). For the reasons stated above, the court finds that the ends of justice served by the delay outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Lawrence J. O'Neill
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.