IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 22, 2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
SARAH ELIZABETH TROUT SIMEON SHAWNISE GREGORY THERESA H. CAMPBELL TERRANCE RYCHAN SMALLS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Senior United States District Judge
THE LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN PLESSER, State Bar #161615 MARK J. REICHEL 455 CAPITOL MALL, 3rd FLOOR, Suite 350 Telephone: Sacramento, California 95814 FAX: (916) 498-9258 firstname.lastname@example.org (916) 441-6553 Attorney TERRANCE for Defendant R. SMALLS
AMENDED STIPULATION TO ) CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE ) TIME PERIODS UNDER ) AND REGARDING EXCLUDABLE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; [PROPOSED] ORDER ) THEREON
Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and the defendants, by and through each counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:
1. By previous order, this matter was set for status conference on March 22, 2013.
2. By this stipulation, all defendants now move to continue the status conference until May 3, 2013, and to exclude time between March 22, 2013 and May 3, 2013 under Local Code T4. This Amended Stipulation is meant to supercede the previously submitted Stipulation and Proposed Order and is identical in all respects except insofar as it adds Defendant Theresa H. Campbell to the Stipulation and Proposed Order. Plaintiff is unopposed.
3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:
a. The government has discovered in excess of three thousand pages of discovery. Additional discovery has been requested and is forthcoming but has not yet been produced.
b. Counsel for the defendants desires additional time to consult with their respective clients, to review the current charges, to conduct investigation and research related to the charges, to review discovery, to discuss potential resolutions with their clients and the prosecution, to prepare pretrial motions, and to otherwise prepare for trial.
c. Counsel for the defendants believe that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny them the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
d. The government is unopposed 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 defendants in a trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act.
f. All counsel and defendant agree that time under the Speedy Trial Act from the date this stipulation is lodged, through May 3, 2013 should be excluded in computing the time within which trial must commence under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (H)(7)(B)(iv) and Local Code T4.
g. 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 FOUND AND ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.