The opinion of the court was delivered by: Court: Hon. Lawrence J. O'Neill
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CHANGE OF PLEA HEARING and ) ORDER
Date: October 1, 2012
Time: 8:30 a.m.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective counsel, KATHLEEN SERVATIUS, Assistant United States Attorney for Plaintiff, and PATIENCE MILROD, counsel for the Defendant:
1. The parties to the above-captioned matter agree to continue the October 1, 2012, hearing date and reset the matter for November 26, at 8:30 a.m for a change of plea hearing.
2. The parties stipulate that the continuance is necessitated by the parties' need to finalize plea negotiations. And it also necessitated by the fact that counsel for defendant will be out of the office from October 12, 2012 through November 7, 2012 as part of a team of lawyers working on voting rights issues in connection with the November elections.
3. The parties further stipulate that time may be excluded through and until November 26, 2012 pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), for defense counsel investigation, preparation and filing of motions, and through and until the date of decision on such motions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(1)(F) and (J).
Dated: September 26, 2012 / Patience Milrod PATIENCE MILROD Attorney for defendant CHRISTIAN BARRON-RUEDA Dated: September 26, 2012 /s/ Kathleen Servatius United States Attorney BENJAMIN B. WAGNER By KATHLEEN SERVATIUS Assistant U.S. Attorney
Having received and reviewed the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefor,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the change of plea hearing presently set for October 1, 2012 at 8:30 a.m., is hereby continued to a new date of November 26, 2012 at 8:30 a.m.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, as the requested date represents the earliest date that defense counsel is available, taking into account her schedule and commitment, including commitment to other clients, and the need for preparation in the case and further investigation, time shall be excluded to and through the date of the status conference in that failure to grant the requested continuance would unreasonably deny the defendant continuity of counsel, and unreasonably deny both the defendant and the government the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the parties' due diligence in prosecuting this case. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The Court finds, based on the reasons articulated, that "ends of justice" are served and that the need for the continuance outweighs the interest of the public and defendant in a speedy trial under the Speedy Trial Act.
HON. LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL Judge of the ...