Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United v. Darren Brown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 19, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
DARREN BROWN,
DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. William B. Shubb

DANIEL J. BRODERICK, #89424 Federal Defender MICHAEL PETRIK, Jr., #177913 Assistant Federal Defender 801 I Street, 3rd Floor Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 498-5700 Attorneys for Defendant

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE TO JUNE 4, 2012, AT 9:30 A.M. Date: April 23, 2012 Time: 9:30 a.m.

THE PARTIES STIPULATE, through counsel, Matthew G. Morris, Assistant United States Attorney, and Michael Petrik, Jr., attorney for Darren Brown, that the Court should vacate the status conference scheduled for April 23, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., and reset it for June 4, 2012, at 9:30 a.m.

Counsel for defendant requires further time to review discovery and to consult with Mr. Brown.

The parties further stipulate that the Court should exclude the period from the date of this order through June 4, 2012, when it computes the time within which the trial of the above criminal prosecution must commence for purposes of the Speedy Trial Act. The parties stipulate that the ends of justice served by granting Mr. Brown's request for a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and Mr. Brown in a speedy trial, and that this is an appropriate exclusion of time for defense preparation within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7) (Local Code T4).

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED. The Court orders that the status conference be continued from April 23, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., to June 4, 2012, at 9:30 a.m. The Court also orders time excluded from the date of this order through the status conference on June 4, 2012, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7) (Local Code T4). For the reasons stated above, the Court also finds that the ends of justice served by granting defendant's request for a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and defendant in a speedy trial.

20120419

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.