The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. Lawrence J. O'Neill
DANIEL J. BRODERICK, Bar #89424 Federal Defender ERIC V. KERSTEN, Bar #226429 Assistant Federal Defender Designated Counsel for Service 2300 Tulare Street, Suite 330 Fresno, California 93721-2226 Telephone: (559) 487-5561 Attorney for Defendant EPIFANIO PADILLA-GARCIA
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE AND ORDER THEREON Date: February 18, 2011 Time: 9:00 a.m.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective counsel, IAN GARRIQUES, Assistant United States Attorney, and ERIC V. KERSTEN, Assistant Federal Defender, counsel for defendant Epifanio Padilla-Garcia, that the date for status conference may be continued to February 18, 2011, or the soonest date thereafter that is convenient to the court. The date currently set for status conference is January 28, 2011. The requested new date is February 18, 2011 at 9:00 a.m.
Mr. Padilla-Garcia is charged with being a Deported Alien Found in the United States. He was also serving a term of supervised release in the District of Utah (No. 02:07-cr-0255 DB) at the time of the pending offense and jurisdiction over the Utah matter has been transferred to the Eastern District of California (No. 1:10-cr-00480 LJO). A pre-plea Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) has been completed and a fast-track plea offer which would resolve both matters has been proffered. However, there are legal disputes regarding both the offense level calculation and the criminal history calculation contained in the PSR. The parties are requesting additional time to attempt to resolve these legal disputes and engage in further negotiations. If the matter is not resolved by February 18, 2011, it is anticipated that a trial date will be requested at that time.
The parties agree that the delay resulting from the continuance shall be excluded as necessary for effective defense preparation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv). For this reason, the ends of justice served by the granting of the requested continuance outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.
ORDER IT IS SO ORDERED. The intervening period of delay is excluded in the interests of justice pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv).
/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw ...