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. David Durham

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


July 27, 2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
DAVID DURHAM,
DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. Lawrence J. O'Neill

DANIEL J. BRODERICK, #89424 Federal Defender MELODY M. WALCOTT, Bar #219930 Assistant Federal Defender Designated Counsel for Service 2300 Tulare Street, Suite 330 Fresno, California 93721-2226 Telephone: (559) 487-5561 Attorney for Defendant DAVID DURHAM

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE SENTENCING SCHEDULE AND HEARING; [PROPOSED] ORDER Date: September 23, 2011 Time: 8:30 A.M.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto, and through their respective attorneys of record herein, that a new sentencing schedule be set as follows:

Event: Present Date: Requested New Date:

Informal Objections Due July 29, 2011 September 2, 2011 Formal Objections Due August 12, 2011 September 16, 2011 Sentencing Hearing August 19, 2011 - 8:30 A.M. September 23, 2011 - 8:30 A.M.

This continuance is requested by counsel for defendant because she has been out of her office on medical leave for an extended period of time and has not had an opportunity to review the Presentence Investigation Report with the defendant; counsel needs additional time to meet with defendant and prepare any necessary and appropriate objections on defendant's behalf. The requested continuance will conserve time and resources for both counsel and the court. Assistant United States Attorney Brian Enos does not object to this request. The requested continuance will conserve time and resources for all parties and the court.

The parties agree that time shall be excluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B) in that the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, since the failure to grant such a continuance would deny counsel for the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

ORDER

Good Cause exists to continue as requested.

Time is hereby excluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

b9ed48

20110727

© 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.