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. Kenneth Manuel Martin

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 7, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
KENNETH MANUEL MARTIN,
DEFENDANT,

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE; FINDINGS AND ORDER DATE: December 10, 2012 TIME: 1:00 P.M. JUDGE: Hon. Dennis L. Beck

The United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through his counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on August 13, 2012 at 1:00 p.m. 2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until December 10, 2012 at 1:00 p.m. before Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck, and to exclude time between August 13, 2012 and December 10, 2012 under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and 3161(h)(7)(B)(i) and (iv). The government does not oppose 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 over 5,000 pages of discovery, including investigative reports, bank records and related documents.

All of this discovery has been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying.

b. Counsel for defendant desires additional time in preparation of this case. The government has provided initial as well as supplementary discovery of several thousand pages.

Defense counsel needs additional time to review discovery with the client, access the discovery for needed motions and investigation, and time to further prepare the case.

c. Counsel for defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny him the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

d. The government does not object 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 August 13, 2012 to December 10, 2012, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and 3161(h)(7)(B)(i) and (iv) 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.

DATED: August 7, 2012 /s/ Henry Z. Carbajal III HENRY Z. CARBAJAL III Assistant United States Attorney DATED: August 7, 2012 /s/Charles J. Lee CHARLES J. LEE Counsel for Defendant KENNETH MANUEL MARTIN

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120807

© 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.