The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
DAVID D. FISCHER (SBN 224900) ATTORNEY AT LAW 1007 7th Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA. 95814 (916) 447-8600 Fax (916) 930-6482 E-Mail: email@example.com Attorney for Defendant VIRGILIO PINEDA
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE Date: May 22, 2012 Time: 9:00 a.m. Judge: Honorable Garland E. Burrell, Jr.
IT IS HEREBY stipulated between the United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Jill Thomas, Assistant United States Attorney, together with counsel for defendant Virgilio Pineda, that the status conference presently set for February 24, 2012, be continued to May 25, 2012, at 9:00 a.m., thus vacating the presently set status conference. This stipulation has been reached because the defendant needs more time to conduct investigation and prepare for this case.
The Government concurs with this request.
Further, the parties agree and stipulate that the ends of justice served by the granting of such a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial and thattime within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act should thereforebe excluded under 18 U.S.C. Section 3161(h)(7)(B) (iv), corresponding to Local Code T-4 (to allow defense counsel time to prepare) from the date of the parties' stipulation, February 22, 2012, to and including May 25, 2012.
Accordingly, the parties respectfully request the Court adopt this proposed stipulation. IT IS SO STIPULATED.
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 defendant in a speedy trial.
The Court orders that the time from the date of the parties' stipulation, February 22, 2012 , to and including May 25, 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)(B)(iv), and Local Code T4 (reasonable time for defense counsel to prepare). It is further ordered that the February 24, 2012, status conference shall be continued until May 25, 2012, at 9:00 a.m.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...