The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. Garland E. Burrell Jr.
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 ANA PEREZ-LOPEZ
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER;
CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDING TIME
Date: February 24, 2012
Time: 9:00 a.m.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective counsel, MICHELE BECKWITH, Assistant United States Attorney, attorney for Plaintiff, and CARO MARKS, attorney for ANA PEREZ-LOPEZ, that the status conference hearing date of January 27, 2012 be vacated, and the matter be set for status conference on February 24, 2012 at 9:00 a.m.
The reason for this continuance is to allow defense counsel time to investigate the defendant's unusual background, including gathering witness declarations and amassing records, in order to present the government with sufficient mitigating evidence to justify the defendant's proposed settlement of the case. The defendant's background is extraordinary and the defense needs time to locate specific the evidence, most in the form of documents (e.g., school and income tax records) and witness statements to support this claim. The need for this continuance is also based on the defendant's location two hours away in Nevada City Jail, which can delay attorney-client meetings, as such meetings often take all day.
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 February 24, 2012 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161 (h)(7)(A)and (B)(iv)[reasonable time to prepare] and Local Code T4 based upon continuity of counsel and defense preparation.
ORDER UPON GOOD CAUSE SHOWN and the stipulation of all parties, it is ordered that the January 27, 2012, status conference hearing be continued to February 24, 2012, at 9:00 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 February 24, 2012 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.
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...