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 Aaron Moore

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


February 25, 2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF,
v.
DENNIS AARON 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 February 25, 2011, be continued to March 4, 2011, at 9:00 a.m.

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

For these reasons, the defendants, defense counsel and the government stipulate 7 and agree that the interests of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best 8 interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C.

§3161(h)(7)(B)(iv) [Local Code T4]; 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(ii) [Local Code T2] Respectfully Submitted

Dated: February 23, 2011 Christopher H. Wing Counsel for Haiying Fan Dated: February 23, 2011 Benjamin B. Wagner United States Attorney By: Philip A. Ferrari Philip A. Ferrari Assistant U.S. Attorney Dated: February 23, 2011 Scott A. Sugarman SCOTT A. SUGARMAN Counsel for Mitchell B. Wright Dated: February 23, 2011 MICHAEL B. BIGELOW Counsel for Gary George

IT IS SO ORDERED

Date: 2/24/2011

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge

20110225

© 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.