IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 21, 2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
RICKY L. FLEMINGS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. Kendall J. Newman
Tim A. Pori (SBN 189270) John F. Baumgardner (SBN 275674) LAW OFFICES OF TIM A. PORI 521 Georgia Street Vallejo, CA 94590 Telephone: (707) 644-4004 Facsimile: (707) 644-7528 Attorney for Defendant RICKY L. FLEMINGS
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXCLUDE TIME
Date: 3/7/2012 Time: 2:00 p.m.
The parties hereby stipulate that the status conference in this case be continued from February 22, 2012, at 9:00 a.m to March 7, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. The parties stipulate that the time between February 22, 2012, and March 7, 2012, should be excluded from the calculation of time under the Speedy Trial Act. The parties stipulate that the ends of justice are served by the Court excluding such time, so that counsel for the defendant may have reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv) and Local Code T-4. Specifically, counsel for defendant Flemings is currently attempting to informally resolve discovery issues with General Counsel for the U.S. Department of Education. Therefore the parties have stipulated to continue the status conference in this case. The parties stipulate and 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).
The parties further request that this matter be taken off the February 22, 2012 calendar before Judge Kendall J. Newman and be rescheduled for March 7, 2012, at 2:00 p.m. before Judge Kendall J. Newman.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on a Motion to Compel in the above-entitled matter is continued to March 7, 2012, at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Kendall J. Newman and that the time between February 22, 2012, and March 7, 2012, be excluded from the calculation of time under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to Local Code T-4. At the hearing, defendant's counsel should be prepared to address why he apparently did not have his client sign an authorization to obtain the requested records directly from the Department of Education without the necessity of a court order.
KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.