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. Medina-Prado

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


October 21, 2010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ALEJANDRO MEDINA-PRADO, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Lawrence K. Karlton

ORDER EXCLUDING TIME UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT, AND SETTING FURTHER STATUS CONFERENCE HEARING DATE Date: October 19, 2010 Time: 9:15am

On October 19, 2010, the parties appeared before the Court for a status conference. Assistant United States Attorney Samuel Wong appeared for Assistant United States Attorney Paul Hemesath on behalf of plaintiff United States of America. Clemente Jimenez, Esq., appeared with his client, defendant Alejandro Medina-Prado.

Mr. Jimenez explained to the Court that he needed additional time to review the discovery materials in this case and to meet with his client to discuss the case to formulate the defense.

Mr. Jimenez requested that the Court continue the status conference to December 7, 2010. Assistant United States Attorney Wong advised the Court that the United States had no objection to Mr. Jimenez's request so long as the Court excluded time under the Speedy Trial Act. Defendant Medina-Prado had no objection to the requests of either counsel.

Good cause appearing from the parties' requests, the Court orders that a status conference shall be conducted on December 7, 2010, at 9:15 a.m. The Court further orders that time from October 19, 2010, to and including December 7, 2010, 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)(iv) and Local Code T4, to allow defense counsel reasonable time to prepare.

The Court finds that the failure to grant the requested continuance in this case would deny defendant's counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation of his client's defense taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court specifically finds that the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuances outweigh the interests of the public and defendant in a speedy trial.

It is so ordered.

20101021

© 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.