IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 1, 2009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
ANDRES URQUIDEZ, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. Edward J. Garcia
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE Date: October 2, 2009 Time: 10:00 a.m.
It is hereby stipulated between the parties, William S. Wong, Assistant United States Attorney, attorney for Plaintiff, and Jeffrey L. Staniels, attorney for defendant ANDRES URQUIDEZ, as follows: The Status Conference date of October 2, 2009, should be continued until November 20, 2009. The reason for the continuance is to permit completion and review of on-going investigation and for further defense preparation including further discussion and consultation with Mr. Urquidez on concerning possible non-trial resolution. The date of November 20 is sought due to the unavailability of defense counsel during substantial periods including a trial preparation trip to Los Angeles from October 6 to October 9; a trip to Philadelphia to help manage a memorial service for a friend and former colleague from October 19 through October 23, and a trial before Judge Karlton commencing October 27, 2009, in which the government estimates two weeks for its direct case.
IT IS STIPULATED that the period from the date of this Stipulation up to and including November 20, 2009, be excluded in computing the time within which trial must commence under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) & (B)(iv), Local Code T4, to permit necessary preparation by defense counsel.
Dated: October 1, 2009
Respectfully submitted, DANIEL BRODERICK Federal Defender
JEFFREY L. STANIELS Assistant Federal Defender Attorney for Defendant ANDRES URQUIDEZ
Dated: October 1, 2009
LAWRENCE G. BROWN Acting United States Attorney
William S. WONG Assistant U.S. Attorney
UPON GOOD CAUSE SHOWN and the stipulation of the parties, it is ordered that the status conference presently set for October 2, 2009, be continued to November 20, 2009, at 10:00 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 defendant continuity of counsel and 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 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 this stipulation, October 1, 2009, to and including, November 20, 2009, 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)(8)(A) & (B)(iv), Local Code T-4, to allow defense counsel time to prepare.
EDWARD J. GARCIA Senior United States District Judge
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.