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. Emma Nersesyan and Agvan Nersesyan

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 13, 2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
EMMA NERSESYAN AND AGVAN NERSESYAN,, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Senior United States District Judge

CANDACE A. FRY CA Bar No. 68910 2401 Capitol Avenue Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone: (916) 446-9322 FAX: (916) 446-0770 E Mail: c.fry@att.net Attorney for AGVAN NERSESYAN, Defendant

STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; (PROPOSED) FINDINGS AND ) ORDER

It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the parties hereto, through their respective counsel, as follows:

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on February 15, 2013.

2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until March 22, 2013, and to exclude time between February 15, 2013, and March 22, 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 745 pages of documents All of this discovery has been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying.

b. Counsel for defendants desire additional time to consult with their clients, to review the current charges, to conduct investigation and research related to the charges and to discuss potential resolutions with their clients. Specifically, counsel are in the process of setting a meeting with the clients and an interpreter to review recent discovery. Counsel for defendants believe that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny them reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

c. The government does not object to the continuance.

d. 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.

e. 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 February 15, 2013 to March 22, 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 defendants' 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.

ORDER

IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED.

20130213

© 1992-2013 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.