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. Victor Manuel Torres

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 12, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
VICTOR MANUEL TORRES
DEFENDANTS,

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 original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act.

f. For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq., within which trial must commence, the time period of July 16, 2012 to August 13, 2012, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 3161(h)(7)(A), B(iv) [Local Code T4] because it results from a continuance granted by the Court at defendant's request on the basis of the Court's finding that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

4. Nothing in this stipulation and order shall preclude a finding that other provisions of the Speedy Trial Act dictate that additional time periods are excludable from the period within which a trial must commence.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120712

© 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.