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


October 7, 2010

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

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

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE

Date: October 8, 2010 Time: 9:00 am

Hon. Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

It is hereby stipulated and agreed to between the United States of America through PHILIP A. FERRARI, Assistant United States Attorney, and defendants, MITCHELL WRIGHT, HAIYING FAN, and GARY GEORGE, by and through their respective counsel, that the status conference in the above-captioned matter set for October 8, 2010, be continued to October 29, 2010, at 9:00 a.m.

The parties further stipulate that the time period from October 8, 2010, up to and including the new status conference date of October 29, 2010, should be excluded from computation of the time for the 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, conduct further investigation and effectively evaluate the posture of the case and potentially prepare for trial. See id. Additionally, the parties continue to stipulate that the above- captioned case is unusual and complex such that it is unreasonable to expect adequate prepartation for pretrial proceedings or for a potential trial within the 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. See 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 Dated: October 6, 2010 CHRISTOPHER H. WING 9 Counsel for Haiying Fan

Dated: October 6, 2010 Benjamin B. Wagner United States Attorney Philip A. Ferarri Assistant U.S. Attorney

Dated: October 6, 2010 SCOTT A. SUGARMAN Counsel for Mitchell B. Wright

Dated: October 6, 2010 MICHAEL B. BIGELOW Counsel for Gary George

IT IS SO ORDERED

20101007

© 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.