IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 20, 2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. Lawrence J. O'Neill
DANIEL J. BRODERICK, Bar #89424 Federal Defender ERIC V. KERSTEN, Bar #226429 Assistant Federal Defender Designated Counsel for Service 2300 Tulare Street, Suite 330 Fresno, California 93721-2226 Telephone: (559) 487-5561 Attorney for Defendant Carlos Martinez
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE SENTENCING HEARING AND ORDER
Date: November 4, 2011 Time: 9:00 a.m.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective counsel, KAREN A. ESCOBAR, Assistant United States Attorney, counsel for plaintiff, and ERIC V. KERSTEN, Assistant Federal Defender, counsel for defendant, Carlos Martinez, that the date for sentencing may be continued to November 4, 2011, or the soonest date thereafter that is convenient to the court. The date currently set for sentencing is October 28, 2011, at 9:00 a.m. The requested new date is November 4, 2011, at 9:00 a.m.
Mr. Martinez is awaiting sentencing after pleading guilty pursuant to a plea agreement. It is anticipated that Mr. Martinez will qualify for a reduction in sentence pursuant to the safety valve provision of the sentencing guidelines; however, he has not yet debriefed. Mr. Martinez is currently housed in Kern County and the government has agreed that he may debrief by means of a written proffer. The requested continuance will allow additional time to resolve any questions that may arise regarding the written proffer. In addition, defense counsel has a calendar conflict in that he is scheduled to attend two parent teacher conferences on the morning of October 28, 2011.
The parties agree that the delay resulting from the requested continuance shall be excluded as necessary for effective defense preparation, and also for continuity of counsel, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv). For this reason, the ends of justice served by the granting of the requested continuance outweigh the interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.
The intervening period of delay is excluded in the interests of justice pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv). Good cause exists for the requested relief.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.