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. Amador Eli Rosales

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 10, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
AMADOR ELI ROSALES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Honorable William B. Shubb

JOHN R. MANNING (SBN 220874) ATTORNEY AT LAW 1111 H Street, # 204 Sacramento, CA. 95814 (916) 444-3994 Fax (916) 447-0931 Attorney for Defendant MICHAEL LEONARD LOVATO

STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; [PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER Date: October 22, 2012 Time: 9:00 a.m.

The United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Jill Thomas, Assistant United States Attorney, together with counsel for defendant Michael Leonard Lovato, John R. Manning, Esq., counsel for defendant Jonathan Gonzalez, Danny D. Brace, Jr., Esq., counsel for defendant Tony Rosales, Dan F. Koukol, Esq., counsel for defendant Adrianna Cano, Mark J. Reichel, Esq., counsel for defendant Derrick Noble, Timothy E. Warriner, Esq., and counsel for defendant Michael Valentino Lovato, Kelly Babineau, Esq., hereby stipulate the following:

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status conference on September 10, 2012.

2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until October 22, 2012 and to exclude time between September 10, 2012 and October 22, 2012 under the Local CodeT-4 (to allow defense counsel time to prepare).

3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request the Court find the following:

a. Counsel for the defendants need additional time to review the discovery, conduct investigation, and interview potential witnesses.

b. Currently the discovery includes 2,250 pages and six CDs of Pen Data.

c. Counsel for defendants believe 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.

d. The Government does not object to the continuance.

e. Based on the above-stated findings, the ends of justice served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act.

f. For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 United States Code Section 3161(h)(7)(A) within which trial must commence, the time period of September 10, 2012 to October 22, 2012, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to

18 United States Code Section 3161(h)(7)(A) ) and (B)(ii) and (iv), corresponding to Local Code T-4 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.

ORDER

20120910

© 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.