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. Stanticha Middleton

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


October 24, 2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
STANTICHA MIDDLETON, STEVEN ETHRIDGE, PAUL MERCHANT,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. William B. Shubb

DANIEL J. BRODERICK, Bar #89424 Federal Defender CARO MARKS, Bar #159267 Designated Counsel for Service 801 I Street, 3rd Floor Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 498-5700 Attorney for Defendant STANTICHA MIDDLETON

AMENDED STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER; CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE ) AND EXCLUDING TIME Date: November 21, 2011 Time: 9:30 a.m.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective counsel, MICHELLE RODRIGUEZ, Assistant United States Attorney, CARO MARKS, attorney for STANTICHA MIDDLETON, DONALD P. DORFMAN, attorney for STEVEN ETHRIDGE, and ERIN RADEKIN, attorney for PAUL MERCHANT, that the status conference hearing date of October 24, 2011 be vacated, and the matter be set for status conference on November 21, 2011 at 9:30 a.m.

The reason for this continuance is to allow the defense adequate time to review the discovery, ascertain the need for research, witness location, or additional investigation. A continuance will also allow the defendants adequate time to finish reading the discovery, during which time they will confer with defense counsel about the case. After conferring with the defendants, defense counsel need time o explore possible defenses and to analyze the sentencing guidelines that relate to the case.

At the same time, the government is preparing plea offers and is preparing to make those offers to the defense. A continuance will give counsel time to receive the proposed plea agreements and then to review them with the defendant.

Counsel advise the court that the parties believe the cases will settle, but that no such settlement is possible until both counsel and the defendants have reviewed the discovery and conferred as described above.

Based upon the foregoing, the parties agree that the time under the Speedy Trial Act should be excluded from the date of signing of this order through and including November 21, 2011 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161 (h)(7)(A)and (B)(iv)[reasonable time to prepare] and Local Code T4, for counsels' preparation. Counsel also stipulate that the ends of justice to be served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.

Respectfully submitted,

ORDER

UPON GOOD CAUSE SHOWN and the stipulation of all parties, it is ordered that the October 24, 2011, status conference hearing be continued to November 21, 2011, at 9:30 a.m. Based on the representation of defense counsel and good cause appearing there from, the Court hereby finds that the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny defense counsel 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 a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. It is ordered that time up to and including the November 21, 2011 status conference shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this matter must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) and Local Code T-4, to allow defense counsel reasonable time to prepare.

20111024

© 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.