IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 29, 2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Lawrence K. Karlton
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney PAUL A. HEMESATH Assistant U.S. Attorney 501 I Street, 10th Floor Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 554-2932
ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE DATE: November 29, 2011 TIME: 9:15 a.m. COURT:
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Assistant United States Attorney Paul Hemesath, and counsel for Plaintiff; and Clemente Jimenez for ALEJANDRO MEDINA-PRADO, that the above status conference be rescheduled from this Court's November 29, 2011, calendar, and that the matter be re-calendared for January 10, 2012, at 9:15 a.m. This request is made jointly by the government and defense in order to permit time for continued preparation, including investigation which is currently in progress, and plea negotiations. The parties 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).
IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that time be excluded through January 10, 2012, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv), Local Code T-4.
Based on the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing therefrom, the Court hereby adopts the stipulation of the parties in its entirety as its order. It is hereby ordered that the status conference currently set for Tuesday, November 29, 2011, be continued to Tuesday, January 10, 2012, at 9:15 a.m. It is further ordered that the time period from the date of the parties' stipulation, through and including the date of the new status conference hearing, January 10, 2012, 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) & (B)(iv) and Local Code T4 [reasonable time for defense counsel to prepare].
Based on the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing therefrom, the Court hereby finds that the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny defense counsel reasonable time for effective preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court specifically finds that the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.