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. Sharrieff

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


July 27, 2010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
NAKESHA SHARRIEFF, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. William B. Shubb

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]ORDER TO CONTINUE SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL HEARING Date: August 23, 2010 Time: 8:30 a.m.

It is hereby stipulated between the parties, Jean Hobler, Assistant United States Attorney, Caro Marks, attorney for defendant Nakesha Sharrieff,as follows:

The substitution of counsel hearing date of August 2, 2010, should be continued until August 23, 2010.

The reason for the continuance is that due to preset court dates, new defense counsel, Dan Koukol, is unable to personally substitute into the case until August 23, 2010.

Undersigned defense counsel and Mr. Koukol have already begun to discuss the case, and undersigned defense counsel intends to provide Mr. Koukol with the voluminous discovery in the case as well as the substantial research already completed. So for purposes of the Speedy Trial Act, the parties stipulate that the period from the date of the signing of this stipulation up to and including August 23, 2010, be excluded in computing the time within which trial must commence under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B)(iv) and Local Code T4, to permit necessary preparation by defense counsel. Dated: July 27, 2010

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: July 27, 2010

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney

JEAN HOBLER Assistant U.S. Attorney

ORDER

UPON GOOD CAUSE SHOWN and the stipulation of all parties, it is ordered that the hearing presently set for August 2, 2010, be continued to August 23, 2010, at 8:30 a.m. Based on the representations of defense counsel and good cause appearing therefrom, the Court hereby finds that the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny 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 the signing of this Stipulation up to and including the August 23, 2010 substitution of counsel hearing 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) & (B)(iv), to allow defense counsel time to prepare.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100727

© 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.