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 States of America v. Todd Douglas Udall

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 12, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
TODD DOUGLAS UDALL,
DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Anthony W. Ishii

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney BRIAN W. ENOS JEREMY R. JEHANGIRI Assistant United States Attorney 2500 Tulare Street, Suite 4401 Fresno, California 93721 Telephone: 559-497-4000 Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America

STIPULATION AND AGREEMENT TO CONTINUE MOTION FILING DEADLINES AND HEARING; ORDER DATE: August 20, 2012 TIME: 10:00 a.m.

The United States of America, by and through Assistant United States Attorneys Brian W. Enos and Jeremy R. Jehangiri, and Defendant Todd Douglas Udall, by and through his counsel, Charles Frederick Magill, submit this stipulation for the Court's consideration.

IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED: 1. The parties request that the motion to dismiss hearing date in this case be continued from July 16, 2012, to August 20, 2012, at 10:00 a.m.

2. The parties further agree that the response to Defendant's motion to dismiss shall be filed on or before August 6, 2012, and that any reply shall be filed on or before August 13, 2012.

3. The parties stipulate that the time resulting from this pre-trial motion should be excluded from the calculation of time under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D).

4. The parties stipulate that good cause exists because counsel for the United States, Brian W. Enose, recently assumed the prosecution of this case. Assistant United States Attorney Jeremy R. Jehangiri is in the midst of transferring to another component in the Department of Justice and this case will no longer be prosecuted by him. The parties thereby agree to this continuance so that AUSA Enos can familiarize himself with this case and for continuity of counsel, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

5. The parties are also engaged in extensive plea negotiations, and this case may be resolved without a motion to dismiss hearing and a trial. The parties stipulate that further discussions relating to a plea agreement and additional time to engage in such plea negotiations would allow for effective representation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and for efficient use of the Court's time and resources. The parties stipulate that a continuance of this motion and related filing dates would permit counsel for the parties to make all reasonable efforts to resolve this case prior to the motion to dismiss hearing.

6. The parties stipulate that the ends of justice are served by the Court excluding such time, so that counsel for the United States and 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).

7. 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).

8. Defendant and his counsel have no objection to this continuance.

SO STIPULATED AND AGREED.

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED, with time excluded for the above-stated reasons.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20120612

© 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.