IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 9, 2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, JR United States District Judge
DAVID D. FISCHER (SBN 224900) ATTORNEY AT LAW 1007 7th Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA. 95814 Tel. (916) 447-8600 Fax (916) 930-6482 E-Mail: email@example.com Attorney for Defendant THUY TRAN
STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE
Date: May 17, 2012 Time: 10:00 a.m.
Judge: Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr.
IT IS HEREBY stipulated between the United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Todd Leras, Assistant United States Attorney, attorney for plaintiff, together with David Fischer, attorney for defendant Thuy Tran, Dina Santos, attorney for Hung Pham, Mark Reichel, attorney for defendant Cuong Long, and Erin Radekin, attorney for defendant Diep Vu that the previously-scheduled status conference date of April 9, 2012, be vacated and that the matter be set for status conference on May 17, 2012, at 10:00 a.m.
Counsel have conferred, this continuance is requested to allow defense counsel additional time to prepare.
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, April 6, 2012, to and including May 17, 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 case is complex and that a 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, April 6, 2012, to and including May 17, 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), Local Code T4 (reasonable time for defense counsel to prepare. It is further ordered that the April 9, 2012, status conference shall be continued until May 17, 2012, at 10:00 a.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.