IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 1, 2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. Anthony W. Ishii
STIPULATION TO AMEND MOTION IN LIMINE FILING SCHEDULE; ORDER THEREON
DATE: April 8, 2013 TIME: 10:00 a.m.
This matter is set for trial on April 23, 2013, with a trial confirmation and hearing on motions in limine scheduled for April 8, 2013. Motions in limine are currently due on March 4, 2013, with responses due March 25, 2013, and replies due April 1, 2013. Mr. Vargas-Frias has requested that different counsel be appointed to represent him and a hearing on the defendant's request is scheduled for March 11, 2013.
It is hereby requested that the existing motion in limine filing schedule be vacated and that a new filing schedule be substituted in its place, but that the trial confirmation date and trial date remain unchanged. This request is made to allow the parties to learn whether new counsel will be appointed prior to the filing of motions in limine, and also to allow additional time for negotiations prior to the filing of said motions.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective counsel, MIA A. GIACOMAZZI, Assistant United States Attorney, counsel for plaintiff, and ERIC V. KERSTEN, Assistant Federal Defender, counsel for defendant Jose Vargas-Frias, that the currently scheduled motion in limine briefing schedule may be vacated, with the following schedule substituted in its place. The requested new dates are as follows: motions in limine may be filed on or before March 18, 2013, with responses due April 1, 2013. It is further requested that the April 8, 2013 trial confirmation date and the April 23, 2013 trial date shall remain unchanged.
This request is made with the intention of conserving time and resources for both parties and the court. The parties agree that the delay resulting from the continuance shall be excluded as necessary for effective defense preparation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv). For this reason, the ends of justice served by the granting of the requested continuance outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney DATED: March 1, 2013 By /s/ Mia A. Giacomazzi MIA A. GIACOMAZZI Assistant United States Attorney Attorney for Plaintiff JOSEPH SCHLESINGER Acting Federal Defender DATED: March 1, 2013 By /s/ Eric V. Kersten ERIC V. KERSTEN Assistant Federal Defender Attorney for Defendant Jose Vargas-Frias
ORDER IT IS SO ORDERED. The intervening period of delay is excluded in the interests of justice pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.