IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 15, 2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
ROBERT EDWARD LANDRY,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Lawrence K. Karlton
Time: 9:15 a.m.
STIPULATION ANDORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDING TIME
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective counsel, CAMIL SKIPPER, Assistant United States Attorney, attorney for Plaintiff, and LINDA HARTER, Chief Assistant Federal Defender, attorney for defendant, that the current Status Conference date of February 15, 2011 be vacated, and a new Status Conference date of February 23, 2011 at 9:15 a.m. be set.
This continuance is requested because undersigned counsel will be attending a funeral and unavailable to appear on the present date. Additionally, Mr. Landry still has an on-going state case in Butte County on a separate charge.
It is further stipulated and agreed between the parties that the period beginning from the date of signing of this order through and including February 23, 2011 should be excluded in computing the time within which the trial of the above criminal prosecution must commence for purposes of the Speedy Trial Act for defense preparation. All parties stipulate and agree that this is an appropriate exclusion of time within the meaning of Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv) (Local Code T4) and that the ends of justice to be served by a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.
Dated: February 15, 2011 Respectfully submitted,
DANIEL J. BRODERICK Federal Defender /s/ Linda Harter LINDA HARTER Chief Assistant Federal Defender Attorney for Defendant ROBERT EDWARD LANDRY
Dated: February 15, 2011 BENJAMIN WAGNER
United States Attorney Linda Harter for CAMIL SKIPPER Assistant U.S. Attorney ORDER Based on the parties' stipulation and good cause appearing therefrom, the Court hereby adopts the stipulation of the parties in its entirety as its order. The Court specifically finds that the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 15, 2011
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.