The Law Office of Olaf W. Hedberg Olaf W. Hedberg, State Bar #151082 Sacramento, California, Attorney for Richard Gray.
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE
TROY L. NUNLEY. District Judge.
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 this stipulation, the defendant now moves to continue the status conference until September 5, 2013, and to exclude time between July 11, 2013, and September 5, 2013, under Local Code T4. Plaintiff does not oppose this request.
2. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:
a. The government has provided discovery in this case in the amount of approximately 150 pages of investigative reports and related documents. All of this discovery has been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying. However, the Government has not as yet provided a figure regarding the loss that allegedly occurred as a result of damage to Postal Service property in this case. Because the loss amount is a necessary component of Defendant's Sentencing Guidelines calculation (see, USSG 2B1.1(b)(1)) Defense counsel cannot as yet complete those calculations. Defense counsel represents that he cannot provide effective assistance of counsel without the ability to inform Defendant of the possible sentence which would be indicated by those advisory Guidelines. Defense counsel has conferred with Government counsel who has represented that the loss materials will be available shortly.
b. Counsel for the defendants desire additional time to assimilate the requested loss information, consult with his client, to conduct investigation and research related to the charges, to review and copy discovery for this matter and to discuss potential resolution with his client.
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 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 defendants 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 July 11, 2013, to September 5, 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 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 the period within which a trial must commence.
IT IS SO ...