The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. Morrison C. England Jr.
DANIEL J. BRODERICK, Bar# 89424 Federal Defender BENJAMIN D. GALLOWAY, Bar# 214897 Assistant Federal Defender 801 I Street, 3rd Floor Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone (916) 498-5700 Attorney for Defendant CHARLES ALLEN BELL
DATE: January 26, 2012
TIME: 9:00 a.m.
It is hereby stipulated and agreed to between the United States of America through WILLIAM WONG, Assistant U.S. Attorney, and defendant, CHARLES ALLEN BELL, by and through his counsel, BENJAMIN GALLOWAY, Assistant Federal Defender, that the status conference set for Thursday, January 5, 2012, be continued to Thursday, January 26, 2012, at 9:00 a.m..
The reason for this continuance is to allow defense counsel additional time to review discovery with the defendant, to examine possible defenses and to continue investigating the facts of the case.
Speedy trial time is to be excluded from the date of this order through the date of the status conference set for January 26, 2012, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161 (h)(7)(B)(iv) [reasonable time to prepare] (Local Code T4).
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 presently set January 5, 2012 status conference and revocation hearing shall be continued to January 26, 2012, at 9:00 a.m.. It is further ordered that the time period from the date of the parties' stipulation, January 5, 2012, through and including the date of the new status conference, January 26, 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)(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 defendant in a speedy trial.
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...