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. Travis Marshall Grey

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 11, 2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
TRAVIS MARSHALL GREY,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. John A. Mendez United States District Court Judge

STIPULATION REGARDING SCHEDULING OF STATUS CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; [PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER DATE: MAY 7, 2013 TIME: 9:45 A.M. JUDGE: JOHN A. MENDEZ

STIPULATION

Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant Travis Marshall Grey, by and through his counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on May 2, 2013, when the case was still assigned to Judge Morrison C. England. This date has been vacated. Time was excluded until May 2, 2013.

2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to schedule the status conference on May 7, 2013, and to exclude time between May 2, 2013 and May 7, 2013, under Local Code T4.

The revocation proceeding on the defendant's revocation of supervised release, in the case captioned, United States v. Travis Marshall Grey, 2:10-cr-00338-JAM, is currently scheduled for May 7, 2013.

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 40 pages of documents and the results from a computer forensic report. All of this discovery has been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying.

b. Counsel for defendant desires additional time to review and investigate the facts of the case, consult with his client, and to discuss potential resolutions with his client.

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 May 2, 2013 to May 7, 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: April 10, 2013 /s/ Lee S. Bickley___________________ Lee S. Bickley Assistant United States Attorney DATED: April 10, 2013 /s/ __Lee. S. Bickley for ___________ Douglas Beevers Counsel for Defendant Travis Grey

ORDER

John A. Mendez

20130411

© 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.