UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 2, 2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
DARREN BROWN, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. William B. Shubb
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE TO
JANUARY 7, 2013, AT 9:30 A.M.
Date: November 5, 2012
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Judge: Hon. William B. Shubb
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 November 5, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., and reset it for January 7, 2013, 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 January 7, 2013, 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: November 1, 2012 Respectfully submitted, DANIEL BRODERICK Federal Defender /s/ M.Petrik MICHAEL PETRIK, Jr. Assistant Federal Defender Dated: November 1, 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 November 5, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., to January 7, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. The Court also orders time excluded from the date of this order through the status conference on January 7, 2013, 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.