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. Navarro

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

October 29, 2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
EDILIO NAVARRO NEMESSIS ROSENDO VENEGAS Defendants.

DAVID D. FISCHER (SBN 224900) LAW OFFICES OF DAVID D. FISCHER, APC, Sacramento, CA, Attorney for Defendant, NEMESSIS ROSENDO VENEGAS.

David D. Fischer for MICHAEL PETRIK, Attorney for Defendant. EDILIO NAVARRO

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER, U.S. ATTORNEY, David D. Fischer for SAMUEL WONG, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Attorney for Plaintiff.

STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER

TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.

STIPULATION

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 previous order, this matter was set for status on October 31, 2013.

2. By this stipulation, the defendants now move to continue the status conference until December 19, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. and to exclude time between October 31, 2013, and December 19, 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 initially provided 32 pages of investigative reports. These reports show that there are additional audio and video recordings and other evidence available for inspection and copying. Defense counsel for defendant Venegas is working on providing reciprocal discovery and needs additional time to gather and organize this discovery to provide to the government.

b. Counsel for the defendants desires additional time to consult with their respective clients, to review the current charges, to conduct investigation and research related to the charges, to review and copy discovery for this matter, to discuss potential resolutions with their clients, to prepare pretrial motions, and to otherwise prepare for trial.

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 best interests of 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.