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. Valentina Beknazarov

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


October 31, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
VALENTINA BEKNAZAROV, ANATOLIY BEKNAZAROV, ET AL. DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, JR United States District Judge

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney Steven Lapham Assistant U.S. Attorney 501 I Street, Suite 10-100 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 554-2700 Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America

STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER THEREON

Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through his/her counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on November 1, 2012.

2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until December 13, 2012 and to exclude time between November 1 and December 13, 2012 under Local Code T4. Plaintiff does not oppose this request.

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

a. The government has represented that the discovery associated with this case includes investigative reports and documents in electronic form consisting of in excess of five thousand pages. All of this discovery has been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying.

b. Counsel for defendants desire additional time to consult with his or her client, to conduct investigation and research related to the charges, to review and copy discovery for this matter, to discuss potential resolutions with his/her client, to prepare pretrial motions, and to otherwise prepare for trial.

c. Counsel for defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny him/her the 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 continuing the case as requested outweigh the interest of the public and the defendant in a trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act.

f. For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq., within which trial must commence, the time period of November 1, 2012 to December 13, 2012, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 3161(h)(7)(A), B(iv) [Local Code T4] 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

Pursuant to the foregoing stipulation, IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED. The status conference in this matter is hereby continued from November 1, 2012 to December 13, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 7.

20121031

© 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.