The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney YASIN MOHAMMAD Assistant United States Attorneys 2500 Tulare St., Suite 4401 Fresno, CA 93721 Telephone: (559) 497-4000 Facsimile: (559) 497-4099 Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; [PROPOSED] AND FINDINGS AND ORDER FERNANDO QUINTERO,
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE AND TO EXCLUDE TIME UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT
Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record above, and defendants, by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:
1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on July 16, 2012.
2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until
August 20, 2012 and to exclude time between July 16, 2012 and August 20, 2012 under Local Code
T4 and 18 U.S.C. § 3161. Plaintiff stipulates to this request.
3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:
a. The government has represented that the discovery associated with this case includes investigative reports, lab reports, audio and video files, and wiretap evidence including voluminous translations. Much of this discovery has been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying. The government recently received a new wave of wiretap and related discovery that will be produced by the end of this week.
b. Counsel for defendant desires additional time consult with his/her client, to review the current charges, to conduct investigation and research related to the charges, to review and copy discovery for this matter, to discuss potential resolutions with his/her client, to prepare pretrial motions, and to otherwise prepare for trial. Furthermore, Counselor Capozzi is set to be in trial on the date the status conference is presently set.
c. The Parties believe that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny the defendants the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and for further plea negotiations.
d. The government stipulates to the continuance.
e. Based on the above-stated findings, the ends of justice served by continuing the case as requested outweigh the interest of the public and the defendant in a trial within the ...