IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 4, 2009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
JAVIER GARCIA, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. William B. Shubb
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING MOTIONS HEARING AND TRIAL DATES, SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND EXCLUDING SPEEDY TRIAL ACT TIME
Whereas, defendant Javier Garcia desires additional time to file additional pretrial motions; conduct further investigation, including the scene of the alleged crimes; and otherwise prepare his defense for trial,
IT IS HEREBY stipulated between plaintiff United States of America and defendant Javier Garcia, through their respective undersigned counsel, that:
1. The presently set June 15, 2009, hearing date on Garcia's motion to suppress statements shall be continued to June 23, 2009, at 9:00 a.m., for argument and evidentiary hearing;
2. The United States' opposition memorandum to Garcia's motion to suppress statements shall be due on June 9, 2009;
3. Garcia's reply memorandum, if any, shall be due on June 16, 2009;
4. The parties shall file any other pretrial motions by June 29, 2009;
5. Responses to other pretrial motions shall be due by July 20, 2009;
6. Reply memoranda, if any, in support of the parties' other pretrial motions shall be due by July 27, 2009;
7. The Court shall hold a hearing on the parties' other pretrial motions on August 3, 2009, at 8:30 a.m., along with a trial confirmation hearing; and
8. The presently set June 23, 2009, trial date shall be continued to September 1, 2009, at 9:00 a.m.
It is further stipulated that the period from the date of this stipulation, June 3, 2009, up to and including September 1, 2009, shall be excluded from the computation of the time within which the trial of this matter must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) and Local Code T4, for preparation of defense counsel.
Dated: June 3, 2009
UPON GOOD CAUSE SHOWN and the stipulation of all parties, it is ordered that the Court adopts the stipulation of the parties as its order in its entirety. Based on the stipulation 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 necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court finds that the ends of justice to be served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. It is ordered that time from the date of the parties' stipulation, June 3, 2009, to and including, the September 1, 2009, trial date shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this matter must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) and Local Code T-4, to allow defense counsel reasonable time to prepare.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.