IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 1, 2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney MATTHEW G. MORRIS Assistant U.S. Attorney 501 I Street, Suite 10-100 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 554-2700
STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE TO FEBRUARY 24, 2012, AND EXCLUDING TIME FOR ) PURPOSES OF THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT
Plaintiff United States of America, by and through Assistant United States Attorney Matthew Morris and Defendant, Justin Graham, by and through his attorney, Robert Saria, hereby stipulate as follows:
The parties agree that the case be continued to February 24, 2012, at which time they request that it be set for a change of plea hearing. The parties request the continuance based upon the following facts, which the parties believe demonstrate good cause to support the appropriate finding under the Speedy Trial Act:
a) The parties have reached an agreement on the terms of a resolution without trial, and anticipate executing a plea agreement in the coming weeks.
b) The parties expect to provide the Court with a draft of a proposed plea agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) prior to the requested hearing date of February 24, 2012.
c) The requested continuance is not based on congestion of the Court's calendar, lack of diligent preparation on the part of the attorney for the government or the defense, or failure on the part of the attorney for the government to obtain available witnesses.
For purposes of computing the date under the Speedy Trial Act by which defendant's trial must commence, the parties agree that the time period of February 3, 2012, to February 24, 2012, inclusive, should be excluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv) and local code T4 because the delay results from a continuance granted by the Court at the joint request of the defendant and the government and on the basis of the Court's finding that: (i) the delay will allow defense counsel reasonable time to prepare; and (ii) the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and defendant in a speedy trial.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.