October 24, 2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
MOHAMMAD NAWAZ KHAN, et al., Defendants.
LAW OFFICES OF CHRIS COSCA CHRIS COSCA (SBN 144546) Sacramento, CA, Attorney for Defendant KEWAL SINGH
JOHN VIRGA, Counsel for Defendant Mohammad Nawaz Khan
RON PETERS, Counsel for Defendant Mohammad Adnan Khan
OLAF HEDBERG, Counsel for Defendant Mohammad Shahbaz Khan
KELLY BABINEAU, Counsel for Defendant Iqila Begum Khan
CHRIS COSCA, Counsel for Defendant Kewal Singh
CANDACE FRY, Counsel for Defendant Gurdev Johl
STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER STIPULATION
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge.
Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendants, by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:
1. The Court previously continued this matter to October 24, 2013, pursuant to a stipulation by the parties.
2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until November 14, 2013 and to exclude time between October 24, 2013 and November 14, 2013 under Local Code T4. Plaintiff does not oppose this request.
3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:
a. The government has produced over 7, 000 pages of discovery to date, which includes FBI-302s, interview memoranda, the search warrants and affidavit, redacted transcripts of recorded conversations and telephone calls, business records from the Employment Development Department, and deposition transcripts from the prior civil case. The government has also made available for inspection and copying at the FBI evidence seized pursuant to the search warrants and business records that were subpoenaed from various banks. Finally, the government has made available for inspection and copying additional business records from the Employment Development Department. These records are voluminous.
b. Counsel for defendants desire additional time to review and copy discovery for this matter and to conduct additional investigation. In addition, the availability of the Punjabi interpreter is causing logistical difficulties for defense counsel's ability to consult with their clients and more time is needed to accomplish that consultation.
c. Counsel for 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 defendant 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 October 24, 2013 to November 14, 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. the Speedy Trial Act dictate that additional time periods are excludable from the period within which a trial must commence.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.