The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. William B. Shubb
DANIEL J. BRODERICK, Bar #89424 Federal Defender COURTNEY FEIN, Bar #244785 Designated Counsel for Service 801 I Street, 3rd Floor Sacramento, California 95814 (916) 498-5700 Attorney for Defendant RICHARD ANTHONY PACLI
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER; CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDING TIME
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective counsel, SAMUEL WONG, Assistant United States Attorney, attorney for Plaintiff, and COURTNEY FEIN, attorney for RICHARD ANTHONY PACLI, that the status conference date of August 13, 2012, be vacated, and the matter be set for status conference on September 17, 2012, at 9:30 a.m.
The reason for the continuance is that counsel has just begun working with an investigator on collecting information relating to bail review so that she may properly advise Mr. Pacli regarding the viability of a bail review motion. Defense counsel also has a discovery request pending and anticipates that discovery will be propounded shortly. Defense counsel will require time to review the discovery and discuss it with Mr. Pacli.
Based upon the foregoing, the parties agree that the time under the Speedy Trial Act should be excluded from the date of the parties' stipulation through and including September 17, 2012, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161 (h)(7)(A)and (B)(iv)[reasonable time to prepare] and Local Code T4 based upon the need for defense preparation. The parties further stipulate that the Court shall find that the ends of justice to be served by granting a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. DATED: August 9, 2012. Respectfully submitted,
ORDER UPON GOOD CAUSE SHOWN and the stipulation of all parties, it is ordered that the August 13, 2012, status conference hearing be continued to September 17, 2012, at 9:30 a.m. Based on the representation of defense counsel and good cause appearing therefrom, the Court hereby finds that the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
The Court finds that the ends of justice to be served by granting a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. It is ordered that time beginning from the date of the parties' stipulation, August 9, 2012, up to and including the September 17, 2012 status conference shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this matter must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) and Local Code T-4, to allow defense counsel reasonable time to prepare.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...