UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 18, 2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. William B. Shubb
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE TO
NOVEMBER 5, 2012, AT 9:30 A.M.
Date: September 24, 2012
Time: 9:30 a.m.
THE PARTIES STIPULATE, through counsel, Matthew G. Morris, Assistant United States Attorney, and Michael Petrik, Jr., attorney for Darren Brown, that the Court should vacate the status conference scheduled for September 24, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., and reset it for November 5, 2012, at 9:30 a.m.
Counsel for defendant requires further time to review discovery, conduct a forensic examination of computer and to consult with Mr. Brown.
The parties further stipulate that the Court should exclude the period from the date of this order through November 5, 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 Mr. Brown's request for a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and Mr. Brown in a speedy trial, and that this is an appropriate exclusion of time for defense preparation within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7) (Local Code T4).
Dated: September 18, 2012 Respectfully submitted, DANIEL BRODERICK Federal Defender /s/ M.Petrik MICHAEL PETRIK, Jr. Assistant Federal Defender Dated: September 18, 2012 BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney /s/ M.Petrik for MATTHEW G. MORRIS Assistant U.S. Attorney
ORDER IT IS SO ORDERED. The Court orders that the status conference be continued from September 24, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., to November 5, 2012, at 9:30 a.m. The Court also orders time excluded from the date of this order through the status conference on November 5, 2012, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7) (Local Code T4). For the reasons stated above, the Court also finds that the ends of justice served by granting defendant's request for a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and defendant in a speedy trial.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.