IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 28, 2009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
CHRISTOPHER SANDERS, II, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable John A. Mendez United States District Court Judge
STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE
REASONS FOR REQUEST
The parties are close to a plea agreement. We need some extra time to prepare the forms, obtain and review a revised pre-plea report from Probation, and counsel for the defense needs extra time to travel to Butte County Jail in Oroville to review the same with Mr. Sanders. The following stipulation is based on the Court's and counsels' earliest availability allowing time for the Court to review the anticipated documentation.
It is hereby stipulated by and between the parties through their respective counsel that the status conference in the above-entitled case presently set for Tuesday, June 2, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. be continued without appearance, for the reasons set forth above, to Tuesday, June 30, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. The parties further stipulate that time included in this continuance be excluded pursuant to Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii)(Local Codes T2 and T4) through May 12, 2009 on the ground that the case is so unusual or so complex within the meaning of the Speedy Trial Act and for defense preparation for reasons described in this stipulation, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii) and (iv)(Local Codes T2 and T4).
GOOD CAUSE APPEARING and upon the stipulation of the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the status conference in the above-entitled case, presently scheduled for Tuesday, June 2, 2009 at 9:30 a.m., be continued without appearance to Tuesday, June 30, 2009 at 9:30 a.m.
Based on the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing therefrom, the Court hereby finds that: the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny defense counsel reasonable time for effective preparation 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 the defendant in a speedy trial. It is further ordered that time from June 2, 2009, up to and including June 30, 2009, be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this matter must be commenced pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act exclusion sections set forth in the stipulation above.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.