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. James Stewart Richards

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 31, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
JAMES STEWART RICHARDS, DEFENDANT,

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, JR United States District Judge

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE MOTION HEARING, FILING DEADLINES; FINDINGS AND ORDER STIPULATION

THE PARTIES STIPULATE, through counsel, Jean Hobler, Assistant United States Attorney, and Michael Petrik, Jr., attorney for James Stewart Richards, that the Court should vacate the motion hearing scheduled for August 9, 2012, at 9:00 a.m., and reset it on August 30, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. The defendant filed his motion on June 28, 2012.

Counsel agree that the government will respond to the defendant's motion on or before August 16, 2012; and the defendant may reply on or before August 23, 2012.

The extension for response by the government is necessary given the nature of the pending motion to dismiss the case in its entirety and the issues raised, including arguments by the defense that appear to be an argument for modification or extension of law, i.e., matters potentially of first impression. The government therefore requests additional time to research and respond to such issues.

Given the government's stipulation to additional time requested by the defense in researching and developing the instant motion, the defendant stipulates that the government's request for additional time is fair and reasonable.

Thus, the parties stipulate that the Court should exclude the period from the date of this order through August 23, 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 the request for time to reasonably respond to the pending motion outweighs the best interest of the public and Mr. Richards in a speedy trial, and that this is an appropriate exclusion of time given the currently pending motion by the defense, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D) (Local Code E). The parties note that the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D) are automatic regarding pending motions and do not require a finding regarding the ends of justice. Nevertheless, the parties stipulate and agree that the ends of justice would outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in the circumstances of this pending motion.

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.

DATED: July 20, 2012 Jean M. Hobler JEAN M. HOBLER Assistant United States Attorney Counsel for Plaintiff DATED: July 20, 2012 /s/ Michael Petrik_____________ MICHAEL PETRIK Assistant Federal Defender Counsel for Defendant

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120731

© 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.