IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 18, 2010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
ROBERT L. CARR, AND THERESA ANN CARR, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. Garland E. Burrell
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE
Date: June 4, 2010
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 June 4, 2010 at 9:00 a.m., be vacated, and the matter be set for status conference on June 25, 2010 at 9:00 a.m.
The reason for the continuance is allow additional time to continue plea negotiations. Also, defense counsel needs additional time to review with their respective clients the voluminous discovery (over 30 boxes of documents). 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, May 17, 2010, and up to and including June 25, 2010, 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)(A) and (B) (ii) and (iv) and Local Codes T2 (unusual and complex case) and T4(ongoing preparation of defense counsel).
Dated: May 17, 2010
UPON GOOD CAUSE SHOWN and the stipulation of all parties, it is ordered that the status conference presently set for June 4, 2010, be continued to June 25, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. Based on the representation of defense counsel and good cause appearing therefrom, the Court hereby finds that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings and trial itself within the time limits established in 18 U.S.C. § 3161, the case is unusual or complex within the meaning of the Speedy Trial Act, and the requested continuance is necessary to provide defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court finds 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, May 17, 2010, up to and including, the June 25, 2010, status conference 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)(ii) and (iv) and Local Codes T2 (unusual and complex case) and T4 (allow defense counsel reasonable time to prepare).
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.