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. Troy Stratos

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


December 18, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
TROY STRATOS, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton United States District Judge Eastern District of California

ORDER EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT [18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)]

On December 4, 2012, the parties appeared before the Court for a hearing on defendant's motion for revocation of detention order February 7, 2012. After the Court denied the motion, Robert Holley, Esq., and David Weiner, Esq., counsel of record for defendant, requested that the matter be continued to March 19, 2013, for a further status. Counsel represented that a large volume of discovery has been provided or made available by the United States and that counsel needs time to review in consultation with his client, who is in custody and for which arrangements will need to be made to review the discovery. The United States concurred in counsel's representation as to the discovery in this case and did not oppose the request for a continuance with an exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161. The Court also found the matter was complex based on the amount of discovery and the nature of the charges.

Furthermore, during the detention hearing before the Judge Brennan, the United States represented to the Court that defendant has been provided in discovery approximately 800 pages of documents and seven DVDs containing audio recordings, and that defendant has been informed there are approximately 42 boxes of additional documents available for his review. The Court, Judge Brennan presiding, found that the case was complex under Local Code T2, which corresponds to the provisions under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii), and that defense counsel needed time to prepare for his client's defense under Local Code T4, which corresponds to the provisions under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that trial delay and exclusion of time is necessary to provide defense counsel reasonable time to prepare his client's defense taking into account due diligence. The Court further finds that the ends of justice to be served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, the time period from December 4, 2012, to March 19, 2013, is EXCLUDED under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(A) and Local Codes T2 (18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii)) and T4 (18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv)), due to the need to provide defense counsel with the reasonable time to prepare.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

By:

20121218

© 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.