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, Plaintiff v. Israel Perez

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 18, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ISRAEL PEREZ, A.K.A. MANUEL VELASQUEZ, JORGE MEJIA, A.K.A. "GORDO," AND DIEGO RAMIREZ, A.K.A. DANIEL FERREIRA, A.K.A. "BEBE," DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck 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; FINDINGS AND ORDER 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 Perez and Ramirez ("defendants"),*fn1 by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on July 23, 2012.

2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until August 27, 2012 and to exclude time between July 23, 2012 and August 27, 2012 under Local Code T4 and 18 U.S.C. § 3161. Plaintiff does not object 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, and audio and video files. Much of this discovery has been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying. Some supplemental discovery will be forthcoming.

b. Counsel for defendants desire additional time consult with their respective 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.

c. The defendants 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 defendants 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 23, 2012 to August 27, 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 defendants' 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.

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.