The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Honorable Garland E. Burrell, Jr.
JOHN R. MANNING (SBN 220874) ATTORNEY AT LAW 1111 H Street, # 204 Sacramento, CA. 95814 (916) 444-3994 Fax (916) 447-0931 Attorney for Defendant JOSEPH ANDRADE
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED ORDER] CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE
Date: January 20, 2012 Time: 9:00 a.m.
IT IS HEREBY stipulated between the United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Jill M. Thomas, Assistant United States Attorney, together with counsel for defendant Thomas Holzmann, Michael Stepanian, Esq., counsel for defendant Peter Holzmann, Randy Sue Pollock, Esq., counsel for defendant Jonathan Sherman, Shari Rusk, Esq., and counsel for defendant Joseph Andrade, John R. Manning, Esq., that the status conference presently set for November 18, 2011 be continued to January 20, 2012, at 9:00 a.m., thus vacating the presently set status conference.
Further, all of the parties, the United States of America and all of the defendants as stated above, hereby 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 defendants in a speedy trial and that time under the Speedy Trial Act should therefore be excluded under Title 18, United States Code Section 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(ii) and (iv) and Local Code T-4 (to allow defense counsel time to prepare) from the date of the parties stipulation, November 16, 2011, to and including January 20, 2012. The defense requests more time to review the anticipated discovery and conduct investigation.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS HOLZMANN, et al., Defendants.
[PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE
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 defendants in a speedy trial.
The Court orders that the time from the date of the parties' stipulation, November 16, 2011, to and including January 20, 2012, 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)(A) and (B)(ii) and (iv), and Local Codes T4 (reasonable time for defense counsel to prepare). It is further ...