The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon Lawrence J. O'neill United States District Judge
STIPULATION AND AGREEMENT TO CONTINUE JURY TRIAL DATE; ORDER --REQUEST DENIED
The United States of America, by and through Assistant United States Attorney Mark J. McKeon, and defendant Roberto Renteria, Jr., by and through his counsel Victor Chavez, submit this stipulation for the court's consideration:
IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED:
1. The parties request that the jury trial date in this case be continued from October 23, 2012 to February 20, 2013, at 9:00 a.m.
2. This matter was originally set for jury trial by stipulation between counsel for the defendant and the attorney who was then counsel for the government, Assistant United States Attorney Jeremy R. Jehangiri, on April 25, 2012.
3. In June 2012, AUSA Jehangiri left the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of California to accept a new position with the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. This matter was re-assigned to Assistant United States Attorney Mark J. McKeon. A new appearance of counsel form was submitted to the court for AUSA McKeon on June 13, 2012.
4. The trial date selected by counsel conflicts with a previously-set trial for AUSA McKeon. AUSA McKeon is the attorney-of-record for the United States in United States
v. Mary Alice Walk, 1:10-cr-00411-AWI. On April 4, 2012, this matter was set for jury trial before Judge Ishii on October 30, 2012.
5. Because of the expected length of the trial in the present matter and the need for effective preparation for both cases, AUSA McKeon cannot try both cases at the appointed times.
6. It was hoped that one of the cases set for trial at the end of October would resolve without a trial, making the conflict moot. However, it is now expected that neither case will resolve without a trial.
7. The new trial date was selected so as not to conflict with previously-set trial dates for both counsel for the United States and counsel for the defense.
8. The parties stipulate that the time between the date of this Order through and including February 20, 2013 should be excluded from the Speedy Trial Act to maintain continuity of counsel and to allow counsel a reasonable amount of additional time to engage in necessary and effective preparation, taking into consideration the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
9. The parties stipulate that the interests of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the ...