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. Phaouthoum

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


March 31, 2010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
KEOOUDONE PHAOUTHOUM, AND JUAN MADRIGAL RIZO, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Garland E. Burrell

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDING TIME

The parties request that the status conference currently set for April 2, 2010, be continued to July 16, 2010, and stipulate that the time beginning April 2, 2010, and extending through July 16, 2010, should be excluded from the calculation of time under the Speedy Trial Act. The parties submit that the ends of justice are served by the Court excluding such time, so that counsel for each defendant may have reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv); Local Code T4.

The parties need additional time for preparation.

Therefore, the parties have agreed and respectfully request that the Court set the date of July 16, 2010, for the status conference.

The parties stipulate and agree that the interests of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

Respectfully Submitted,

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney

Dated: March 31, 2010

MICHAEL M. BECKWITH Assistant U.S. Attorney

JOSEPH WISEMAN Attorney for defendant KEOOUDONE PHAOUTHOUM

GILBERT A. ROQUE Attorney for defendant JUAN MADRIGAL RIZO

ORDER

For the reasons stated above, the status conference for defendants, Keoudone Phaouthoum and Juan Madrigal, in case number CR. S-08-0392-GEB, currently set for April 2, 2010, is continued to July 16, 2010; and the time beginning April 2, 2010, and extending through July 16, 2010, is excluded from the calculation of time under the Speedy Trial Act for effective defense preparation. The Court finds that interests of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge

20100331

© 1992-2010 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.