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. Ramon Arturo Martinez

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


September 27, 2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
RAMON ARTURO MARTINEZ,
DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Anthony W. Ishii

JEREMY R. JEHANGIRI Assistant United States Attorney 2500 Tulare Street, Suite 4401 Fresno, California 93721 Telephone: 559-497-4000 Attorneys for Plaintiff

United States of America

STIPULATION AND AGREEMENT TO CONTINUE MOTION HEARING; ORDER DATE: October 17, 2011 TIME: 1:30 p.m.

The United States of America, by and through Assistant United States Attorney Jeremy R. Jehangiri, and Defendant Ramon Arturo Martinez, by and through his counsel, Ann Voris, submit this stipulation for the Court's consideration.

IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED: 1. The parties request that the motion to suppress hearing date in this case be continued from October 3, 2011, to October 17, 2011, at 1:30 p.m.

2. The parties stipulate that the time resulting from this pre-trial motion should be excluded from the calculation of time under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D).

3. The parties stipulate that the ends of justice are served by the Court excluding such time, so that counsel for the United States and the defendant 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).

4. The parties stipulate and agree that the interests of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

5. The parties are also engaged in extensive plea negotiations, and this case may be resolved without a trial. The parties stipulate that further discussions relating to a plea agreement and additional time to engage in such plea negotiations would allow for effective representation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and for efficient use of the Court's time and resources.

6. Defendant and his counsel have no objection to this continuance.

SO STIPULATED AND AGREED.

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20110927

© 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.