The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. Garland E. Burrell
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between the parties, Samuel Wong, Assistant United States Attorney, for plaintiff United States of America, on the one hand, and Douglas Beevers, Assistant Federal Defender, attorney for defendant Theresa Ann Carr, and C. Emmett Mahle, Esq., attorney for defendant Robert Carr, on the other hand, that the status conference of September 18, 2009 at 9:00 a.m., be vacated, and the matter be set for status conference on October 23, 2009 at 9:00 a.m.
The reason for the continuance is that both defense counsel have only recently taken over this case in which discovery includes many boxes of evidence, and counsel requires time to review the evidence.
In addition, the Government expects to have a summary of additional expert evidence ready for disclosure before October 23, 2009. The parties agree a continuance is necessary for these purposes, and agree to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act accordingly.
IT IS STIPULATED that the period from the date of the parties' stipulation, September 15, 2009, and up to and including October 23, 2009, shall be excluded in computing the time within which trial of this matter must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv) and Local Code T4, for ongoing preparation of defense counsel.
Dated: September 15, 2009
Respectfully submitted, DANIEL BRODERICK Federal Defender
DOUGLAS BEEVERS Assistant Federal Defender Attorney for Defendant THERESA ANN CARR
C. EMMETT MAHLE Attorney for defendant Robert Carr
LAWRENCE BROWN Acting United States Attorney SAMUEL WONG Assistant U.S. Attorney
UPON GOOD CAUSE SHOWN and the stipulation of all parties, it is ordered that the status conference presently set for September 18, 2009, be continued to October 23, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. Based on the representation of defense counsel and good cause appearing therefrom, the Court hereby finds that the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny defendants' 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 a 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, September 15, 2009, up to and including, the October 23, 2009, status conference shall be excluded from computation of ...