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. Rizo

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


September 26, 2010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JUAN MADRIGAL RIZO, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge

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

Hon. GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

The United States of America, through its counsels of record, Benjamin B. Wagner, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California, and Michael M. Beckwith, Assistant United States Attorney, defendant Juan Madrigal Rizo, through his counsel of record, Gilbert Roque, request that the status conference currently set for September 24, 2010, be continued to October 15, 2010, and stipulate that the time beginning September 24, 2010, and extending through October 4, 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 the 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 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).

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney

Dated: September 24, 2010

MICHAEL M. BECKWTIH Assistant U.S. Attorney Attorney for Plaintiff

DATED: September 24, 2010

GILBERT ROQUE Attorney for Defendant JUAN MADRIGAL RIZO

ORDER

The status conference in case number CR. S 08-392 GEB, currently set for September 24, 2010, is continued to October 15, 2010, and the time beginning September 24, 2010, and extending through October 15, 2010, is excluded from the calculation of time under the Speedy Trial Act. For the reasons stated in the above stipulation, 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100926

© 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.