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 of America v. Dennis Moore

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


January 28, 2011

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE

TIME: 9:00 am

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 January 28, 2011, be continued to February 25, 2011, at 9:00 a.m.

The parties further stipulate that the time period from January 28, 2011, up to and including the new status conference date of February 25, 2011, 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 of newly produced discovery in the case, conduct further 2 investigation and effectively evaluate the posture of the case and potentially prepare 3 for trial. See id. Additionally, the parties continue to stipulate that the above- 4 captioned case is unusual and complex such that it is unreasonable to expect adequate 5 preparation for pretrial proceedings or for a potential trial within the limits established 6 by the Speedy Trial Act.

For these reasons, the defendants, defense counsel and the government stipulate 2 and agree that the interests of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the 3 best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. 4 §3161(h)(7)(B)(iv) [Local Code T4]; 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(ii) [Local Code T2] Respectfully Submitted

Dated: January 25, 2011

CHRISTOPHER H. WING

Counsel for Haiying Fan

Dated: January 25, 2011

Benjamin B. Wagner United States Attorney

By: Philip A. Ferrari Philip A. Ferrari Assistant U.S. Attorney

Dated: January 25, 2011

Scott A. Sugarman SCOTT A. SUGARMAN Counsel for Mitchell B. Wright

Dated: January 25, 2011

Michael Bigelow MICHAEL B. BIGELOW Counsel for Gary George

IT IS SO ORDERED Date: 1/27/2011

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge

DEAC_Sign ature-END:

20110128

© 1992-2011 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.