The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Honorable William B. Shubb
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 MICHAEL LEONARD LOVATO
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED ORDER] CONTINUING
Date: February 27, 2012
Time: 9:30 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 Michael Leonard Lovato, John R. Manning, Esq., counsel for defendant Jonathan Gonzalez, Danny D. Brace, Jr., Esq., counsel for defendant Andre Kovacs, James P. Chandler, Esq., counsel for defendant Tony Rosales, Dan F. Koukol, Esq., counsel for defendant Adrianna Cano, Mark J. Reichel, Esq., and counsel for defendant Derick Noble, Timothy E. Warriner, Esq., that the status conference presently set for January 9, 2012 be continued to February 27, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., thus vacating the presently set status conference.
Defense counsel requires additional time to review the voluminous discovery and perform investigation. Therefore, counsel for the parties stipulate and agree that the interests of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the defendants and the public in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(A) (continuity of counsel/ reasonable time for effective preparation) and Local Code T4, and agree to exclude time from the date of the filing of the order until the date of the status conference, February 27, 2012.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. AMADOR ELI ROSALES, et al., Defendants.
ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERNCE
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, January 4, 2012, to and including February 27, 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 ...