Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Adams

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

August 2, 2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
THEO ADAMS and RACHEL SIDERS, Defendants.

CHRISTOPHER HAYDN-MYER, LAW OFFICE CHRISTOPHER HAYDN-MYER, CA. BAR # 176333, Roseville, California, Attorney for Defendant, THEO ADAMS.

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER, United States Attorney, MICHELE BECKWITH, Assistant United States Attorney, Attorney for Plaintiff United States.

LAW OFFICES OF EDUARDO G. ROY, EDUARDO G. ROY, Attorney for Defendant Rachel Siders.

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE; FINDING OF EXCLUDABLE TIME

JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.

STIPULATION

Plaintiff, United States of America, through Assistant U.S. Attorney Michele Beckwith; defendant Theo Adams, through counsel Christopher Haydn-Myer; and, defendant Rachel Siders, through counsel Eduardo G. Roy, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

1. A status conference is currently set for August 6, 2013 at 9:45 a.m.

2. By this stipulation, the above-named defendants now move to continue the status conference to September 3, 2013 at 9:45 a.m., and to exclude time between August 6, 2013 to September 3, 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 provided defense counsel with the discovery associated with this case, which includes voluminous records, including mortgage and bank records involving multiple transactions. All of this discovery has been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying, and/or will be made available.
b. Since October 30, 2012, counsel for defendants have been reviewing these materials, discussing them with their clients, and assessing potential trial and sentencing issues.
c. Additionally, the government has provided proposed plea agreements to defense counsel, which defense counsel have been discussing with their clients and the government.
d. Defense counsel need additional time, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, to review the materials described above and to discuss them with their clients, and otherwise effectively prepare for the disposition of this case. Based on the Court's available calendars and the availability of defense counsel, the parties ask that the Court set this matter for a status conference on September 3, 2013, and that it find excludable time from August 6, 2013 through and including the September 3, 2013 status conference. Because of the need for additional preparation outlined above, a denial of a continuance to September 3, 2013 would deny the parties the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
e. Based on the above-stated findings, the ends of justice served by continuing the case and excluding time as requested outweigh the interest of the public and the defendant in a trial within the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.