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 v. Wiles

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

May 8, 2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT KURTIS RAY WILES, Defendant.

TASHA PARIS CHALFANT (SBN 207055), THE LAW OFFICES OF TASHA PARIS CHALFANT, Rocklin, California, Attorney for Defendant ROBERT KURTIS RAY WILES.

JUSTIN L. LEE, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Attorney for the United States.

STIPULATION AND ORDER VACATING DATE, CONTINUING CASE, EXCLUDING TIME, AND ORDER FOR PRE-PLEA CRIMINAL HISTORY EVALUATION AND PRE-PLEA REPORT FOR DEFENDANT

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge.

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

1. On January 23, 2013, the parties first appeared before the Court for Arraignment on the Indictment and continued the matter to March 7, 2013 for a Status Conference. The matter was continued by stipulation and order until May 9, 2013, to allow the defendant and his counsel to review discovery and conduct investigation.

2. By this Stipulation, the defendant now moves to continue the Status Conference until June 27, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. and to exclude time between May 9, 2013 and June 27, 2013, under Local Code T4. The United States does not oppose this request.

3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:

a. The United States provided discovery to the defendant on January 23, 2013 and March 13, 2013.

b. The United States and counsel for the defendant have discussed the possibility of a plea in this case.

c. The United States and counsel for defendant believe it would be appropriate for the United States Probation Office to prepare a criminal history evaluation, and determine the criminal history category, for defendant prior to a change of plea. As such, the parties request that this Court make such an order.

d. The criminal history for defendant is ambiguous and his criminal history cannot be determined with sufficient confidence to adequately advise the defendant of the consequences of a change of plea. Moreover, an accurate calculation of the defedant's criminal history category would significantly aid in the settlement of this matter.

e. The United States and counsel for defendant have looked at the potential application of the sentencing guidelines and determined that further plea negotiations cannot proceed without an interpretation of the applicable guideline provisions from Probation. Accordingly, the United States and defendant request that the Court order Probation to prepare a pre-plea report to determine that applicable guideline range. The parties request that the pre-plea report be limited to the guildeline determination and not include an interview of the defendant.

f. Counsel for the defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

g. The United States does not object to this continuance.

h. 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.

i. For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §3161, within which trial must commence, the time period of May 9, 2013, to June 27, 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 the 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.

The government has authorized the defense counsel for defendant to sign this stipulation on his behalf.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

In accordance with the foregoing stipulation, and good cause appearing therefor, the status conference in this matter is hereby continued from May 9, 2013 to June 27, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 7.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.