CHRISTOPHER HAYDN-MYER LAW OFFICES, CHRISTOPHER HAYDN-MYER, CA. BAR # 176333, Roseville, California, Attorney for Defendant, ERIK SOLISFOX.
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER, United States Attorney. JASON HITT, Assistant United States Attorney, Attorney for Plaintiff United States.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE; FINDING OF EXCLUDABLE TIME
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.
Plaintiff, United States of America, through Assistant U.S. Attorney Jason Hitt and defendant Erik Solisfox, through counsel Christopher Haydn-Myer, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
1. A status conference is currently set for May 28th, 2013 at 9:30 a.m.
2. By this stipulation, the above-named defendants now move to continue the status conference to May 28, 2013 at 9:30 a.m., and to exclude time between May 28th, 2013 to July 1, 2013 under Local Code T4. Plaintiff does not oppose this request.
3. The basis upon which the parties agree to this proposed continuance of the status conference is as follows:
a. The government has produced discovery which to date includes 689 pages containing investigative materials. Additionally, the government and counsel have been in negotiations to resolve the case, and the additional time is necessary for plaintiff and defendant to reach a resolution to the case.
b. Counsel for defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny his client the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
c. Plaintiff does not object to the continuance.
d. Based on the above-stated findings, the ends of justice served by continuing the status conference as requested outweigh the best 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, 16 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq., within which trial must commence, the time period from May 28th, 2013, to July 1, 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 by the Court at the 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 defendants 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 ...