IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 24, 2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
AHMED CHARTAEV, KHADZHIMURAD BABATOV, NICHOLAS VOTAW, STANISLAV SARBER, HAKOB SERGOYAN, ROMAN MALAKHOV, MAGOMED ABDUKHALIKOV, SERGEY SHCHIRSKIY, ANDREY KIM, AND ANTON TKACHEV,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Senior United States District Judge
THOMAS A. JOHNSON, #119203 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1620 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 422-4022 Attorney for Defendant Andrey Kim
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE
Plaintiff, United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and Thomas A. Johnson, attorney for Andrey Kim, John Richard Manning, attorney for Ahmed Chartaev, John Duree, attorney for Khadzhimurad Babatov, Danny Brace, attorney for Sergey Shschirskiy, Victor Haltom, attorney for Magomed Abdukhalikov, David Fischer, attorney for Nicholas Votaw, Alan Eisner, attorney for Hakob Sergoyan, Peter Kmeto, attorney for Stanislav Sarber, and Christopher Haydn-Myer, attorney for Anton Tkachev, hereby stipulate as follows:
1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on January 25, 2013.
2. By this stipulation, Defendants now move to continue the Status Conference to April 5, 2013, and to exclude time between January 25, 2013, and April 5, 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 approximately 4,500 pages of discovery. This discovery has been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying.
b. The continuance is being requested because the attorneys for each defendant need more time to prepare which will include reviewing discovery, discussing that discovery with their respective clients, considering new evidence that may affect the disposition of this case, conducting necessary research and investigation and then discussing with their clients how to proceed.
c. Counsel each 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
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 ofJanuary 25, 2013, to April 5, 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 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.