Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Kinderman

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 2, 2009

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
KATHRYN KINDERMAN, DEFENDANT.

ORDER EXCLUDING TIME UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT, AND SETTING FURTHER STATUS CONFERENCE DATE Court: Hon. Lawrence K. Karlton

On March 17, 2009, the parties appeared before the Court for a status conference. Assistant United States Attorney Samuel Wong appeared for Assistant United States Attorney Matthew D. Segal on behalf of plaintiff United States of America. Dan Koukol, Esq., appeared with his client, defendant Kathryn Kinderman.

The parties requested that the matter be continued to April 28, 2009, at 9:30 a.m., for further status conference to allow the United States time to obtain additional bank documents requested by defendant, and allow defense counsel sufficient time to analyze the bank documents and prepare his client's defense. The parties requested and agreed that time from March 17, 2009, to, and including, April 28, 2009, shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to Local Code T4.

Based on the representations and stipulations of the parties, and good cause appearing therefrom, the Court sets a new status conference hearing on April 28, 2009, at 9:15 a.m. The Court orders that time from March 17, 2009, to, and including, April 28, 2009, shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to Local Code T4.

The Court finds that the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny both plaintiff' counsel and defendant's counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation of their respective client's cases, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court specifically finds that the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the interests of the public and defendant in a speedy trial.

It is so ordered.

20090402

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.