BENJAMIN B. WAGNER, United States Attorney, KYLE REARDON, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DAVID W. DRATMAN, Sacramento, CA, Attorney for the Defendant.
STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE FROM SEPTEMBER 5, 2013, TO SEPTEMBER 19, 2013
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through his counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:
1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on September 5, 2013 before the Honorable Troy L. Nunley
2. By this stipulation, the parties now move to continue the status conference until September 19, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., and to exclude time between September 5, 2013, and September 19, 2013 under Local Code T4.
3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find that:
a. the defendant pleaded guilty in Placer County Superior Court to a violation of California Penal Code § 311.11. Pursuant to an agreement with the United States, the federal case against the defendant will be dismissed following judgment and sentencing in the Placer County case. Judgment and sentencing in the Placer County case is set for Wednesday, September 4, 2013. A continuance is therefore necessary in order to allow for judgment and sentencing in the Placer County case.
b. the continuance is also necessary in order to insure continuity of counsel, and that the failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny the parties the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
c. The government does not object to the continuance.
d. 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.
e. For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq., the time period of September 5, 2013 to September 19, 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 ...