The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Senior United States District Judge
KELLY BABINEAU (CA State Bar #190418) The Law Office of Kelly Babineau 901 H Street, Suite 203 Sacramento, CA 95814 Tel:(916) 442-4948 Fax: (916) 492-2909 firstname.lastname@example.org Attorney for ALLA SAMCHUK
STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; [PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER
Date: 2-15-13 Time: 9:00 a.m. Judge: Hon. Garland E. Burrell
Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through her counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:
1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on January 18, 2013.
2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until February 15, 2013 and to exclude time between January 18, 2013 and February 15, 2013 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 six recordings in Russian, approximately 2780 pages of discovery which includes numerous bank records and mortgage loan documents, as well as witness interviews. All of this discovery has been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying.
b. Counsel for defendant desires additional time to have the recordings in Russian translated and transcribed. Previously, defense counsel had obtained authorization for the translation of the recordings. The interpreter has these recordings, but has run into several problems with the formatting of the tapes. All of these issues have been resolved and the interpreter has indicted that he will finish with the translation / transcription by the end of January 2013. Counsel for defendant also desires additional time to consult with her client, to review the current charges, to finish the investigation and research related to the charges, to finish ongoing investigation, and to discuss potential resolutions with her client.
c. Counsel for defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny 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 January 18, 2013 to February 15, 2013, 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 ...