IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 8, 2010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
ROBERT L. CARR, AND THERESA ANN CARR, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
STIPULATION AND[PROPOSED]ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE
Date: October 29, 2010
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Judge: Hon. Garland E. Burrell
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between the parties, SAMUEL WONG, Assistant United States Attorney, DOUGLAS BEEVERS, Assistant Federal Defender, attorney for defendant THERESA ANN CARR, and C. EMMETT MAHLE, Esq.,attorney for defendant ROBERT CARR, that the status conference of October 8, 2010 at 9:00 a.m., be vacated, and the matter be set for status conference on October 29, 2010 at 9:00 a.m.
The reason for the continuance is allow additional time to negotiate a resolution and to allow defense counsel additional time to review the voluminous discovery. 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, October 7, 2010, and up to and including the October 29, 2010 Status Conference, 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: October 7, 2010
DANIEL BRODERICK Federal Defender
DOUGLAS BEEVERS Assistant Federal Defender Attorney for Defendant THERESA ANN CARR
Dated: October 7, 2010
UPON GOOD CAUSE SHOWN and the stipulation of all parties, it is ordered that the status conference presently set for October 8, 2010, be continued to October 29, 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, October 7, 2010, up to and including, the October 29, 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).
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.