November 24, 2010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
Date: December 10, 2010
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Judge: Hon. Garland E. Burrell Jr.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER;CONTINUING
STATUS CONFERENCE ) AND EXCLUDING TIME
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective counsel, MICHELE BECKWITH, Assistant United States Attorney, and CARO MARKS, attorney for JAVIER PALOALTO-RIVERA, that the status conference hearing date of December 3, 2010 be vacated, and the matter be set for status conference on December 10, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. The reason for this continuance is that without notice, the defendant was just moved from pretrial detention in Sacramento County Jail to detention in Oroville, in the Butte County Jail. While defense counsel has reviewed his "Alien Pre-Plea Presentence Report" with the defendant, his sudden relocation made it impossible to review the plea agreement with him in time for his December 3 hearing. Therefore, a continuance is necessary to give defense counsel time to travel to Butte County with an interpreter, and review the plea agreement with the defendant.
Based upon the foregoing, the parties agree that the time under the Speedy Trial Act should be excluded from the date of signing of this order through and including December 10, 2010 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161 (h)(7)(A)and (B)(iv)[reasonable time to prepare] and Local Code T4 based upon continuity of counsel and defense preparation.
DATED: November 24, 2010. Respectfully submitted, DANIEL J. BRODERICK Federal Public Defender
/s/ Caro Marks
CARO MARKS Designated Counsel for Service Attorney for Javier Paloalto-Rivera DATED November 24, 2010. BENJAMIN WAGNER United States Attorney /s/ Caro Marks for MICHELE BECKWITH Assistant U.S. Attorney Attorney for Plaintiff
ORDER UPON GOOD CAUSE SHOWN and the stipulation of all parties, it is ordered that the December 3, 2010, status conference hearing be continued to December 10, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. Based on the representation 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 up to and including the December 10, 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)(iv) and Local Code T-4, to allow defense counsel reasonable time to prepare.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.