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. Scott James

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


October 7, 2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
SCOTT JAMES,
DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. Garland E. Burrell

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney PAUL A. HEEMSATH 501 I Street, Suite 10-100 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 554-2700 (916) 554-2900 FAX

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING AND MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE Date: October 21, 2011 Time: 9:00 a.m.

THE PARTIES STIPULATE, through counsel, Paul Hemesath, Assistant United States Attorney, and Michael Petrik, Jr., attorney for defendant SCOTT JAMES, that the Court should vacate the hearing date scheduled for October 21, 2011, at 9:00 a.m., at 9:00 a.m., and reset that hearing on defendant's motion on November 18, 2011, at 9:00 a.m.

The government has made diligent efforts to respond to JAMES's motion but the government requires additional time to ensure the assimilation of all relevant facts; counsel for JAMES requires this time to continue to review discovery, and to confer with JAMES regarding the motion and other matters relevant to his defense.

The parties stipulate that the government will file an opposition to JAMES's motion on or before November 4, 2011; and that JAMES may file an optional reply on or before November 11, 2011.

The parties also stipulate that the Court should exclude the period from the date of this order through the disposition of the pending motion, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D) (pre-trial motions) when it computes the time within which the trial of the above criminal prosecution must commence for purposes of the Speedy Trial Act. The parties stipulate that the ends of justice served by granting the parties' request outweigh the best interest of the public and JAMES in a speedy trial.

Respectfully submitted,

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Finding that the interests of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, IT IS SO ORDERED.

20111007

© 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.