UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 6, 2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
TRENT DAVIS, DEFENDANT
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Chief Judge: Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr.
STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER DATE: January 31, 2013 TIME: 9:00 a.m.
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 and/or sentencing on January 31, 2013.
2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until March 14, 2013 and to exclude time between January 31, 2013 and March 14, 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. Counsel for defendant was asked to substitute in for defendant's prior attorney on or about November 27, 2013. Based on what appeared to current counsel to be a good deal of confusion and disagreement over the mechanism of the loss and the amounts of loss involved in the totality of this case, it took longer than current counsel expected to "get up to speed" on the facts of the case; consult with the defendant (who is out of state); and come to a resolution with Mr. Davis.
b. Counsel for defendant desires additional time to consult with his client and to allow the client to obtain a reasonable air fare to fly to Sacramento for sentencing. Counsel and defendant have reached a resolution on January 23, 2013, which does not leave Mr. Davis enough time to obtain a reasonable airfare to be present on January 31, 2013. We also have additional issues to discuss. Therefore, we request a continuance for sentencing to the date of March 14, 2013
c. Counsel for defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny him 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 31, 2013 to March 14, 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.
DATED: February 1, 2013 BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney /s/ Robert Tice-Raskin by Jan David Karowsky w/ Mr. Tice-Raskin's approval by Robert Tice-Raskin Assistant U.S. Attorney by Jan David Karowsky DATED: February 1, 2013 JAN DAVID KAROWSKY Attorney at Law A Professional Corporation /s/ Jan David Karowsky by JAN DAVID KAROWSKY Attorney for Defendant Trent Davis
Pursuant to the Stipulation filed in this matter, the specific stipulations entered into in said Stipulation ARE SO FOUND AND ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.