IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 30, 2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
VIRGILIO PINEDA DEFENDANT
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Honorable Garland E. Burrell, Jr.
DAVID D. FISCHER (SBN 224900) ATTORNEY AT LAW 1007 7th Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA. 95814 (916) 447-8600 Fax (916) 930-6482 E-Mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Attorney for Defendant VIRGILIO PINEDA
STIPULATION AND ) ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE Date: September 30, 2011 Time: 9:00 a.m.
IT IS HEREBY stipulated between the United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Jill Thomas, Assistant United States Attorney, together with counsel for defendant Virgilio Pineda, that the status conference presently set for September 2, 2011, be continued to September 30, 2011, at 9:00 a.m., thus vacating the presently set status conference. This stipulation has been reached because the defendant needs more time to conduct investigation and prepare for this case.
The Government concurs with this request.
Further, the parties agree and stipulate that the ends of justice served by the granting of such a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial and thattime within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act should thereforebe excluded under 18 U.S.C. Section 3161(h)(7)(B) (iv), corresponding to Local Code T-4 (to allow defense counsel time to prepare) from the date of the parties' stipulation, August 26, 2011, to and including September 30, 2011.
Accordingly, the parties respectfully request the Court adopt this proposed stipulation. IT IS SO STIPULATED.
The Court, having received, read, and considered the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefrom, adopts the stipulation of the parties in its entirety as its order. Based on the stipulation of the parties and the recitation of facts contained therein, the Court finds that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings and trial itself within the time limits established in 18 U.S.C. § 3161. In addition, the Court specifically finds that the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny defense counsel to this stipulation reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court finds that the ends of justice to be served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.
The Court orders that the time from the date of the parties' stipulation, August 26, 2011, to and including September 30, 2011, shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv), and Local Code T4 (reasonable time for defense counsel to prepare). It is further ordered that the September 2, 2011, status conference shall be continued until September 30, 2011, at 9:00 a.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.