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. Moore

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


July 21, 2010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DENNIS AARON MOORE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

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

Date: September 3, 2010

Time: 9:00 a.m.

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE

It is hereby stipulated and agreed to between the United States of America through PHILIP A. FERRARI, Assistant United States Attorney, and defendants DENNIS MOORE, MITCHELL WRIGHT, HAIYING FAN and GARY GEORGE, by and through their respective counsel, that the status conference in the above-captioned matter set for Friday, July 23, 2010, be continued to Friday, September 3, 2010, at 9:00 a.m.

The parties further stipulate that the time period from July 23, 2010, up to and including the new status conference date of September 3, 2010, should be excluded from computation of the time for commencement of trial under the Speedy Trial Act. The parties stipulate that the ends of justice are served by the Court excluding such time, so that each defense counsel 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). Specifically, each defendant agrees that his or her counsel needs additional time to continue discussions with the government regarding potential resolution of the case, review produced discovery in the case, and effectively evaluate the posture of the case and potentially prepare for trial. Additionally, the parties continue to stipulate that the above-captioned case is unusual and complex such that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings, or for a potential trial within the time limits established by the Speedy Trial Act.

For these reasons, the defendants, defense counsel, and the government 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)(B)(iv) (Local Code T4); 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii) (Local Code T2).

Respectfully Submitted,

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney

DATE: July 21, 2010

By: PHILIP A. FERRARI Assistant U.S. Attorney

DATE: July 21, 2010

By: Philip A. Ferrari for ANNE C. BELES Att'y for Dennis Moore

DATE: July 21, 2010

By: Philip A. Ferrari for SCOTT A. SUGARMAN Att'y for Mitchell B. Wright

DATE: July 21, 2010

By: Philip A. Ferrari for MICHAEL B. BIGELOW Att'y for Gary George

DATE: July 21, 2010

By: Philip A. Ferrari for CHRISTOPHER H. WING Att'y for Haiying Fan

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge

20100721

© 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.