BENJAMIN B. WAGNER, United States Attorney, TODD A. PICKLES, Assistant United States Attorney, Sacramento, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff, United States of America.
ROTHSCHILD WISHEK & SANDS LLP, CLYDE M. BLACKMON, ESQ., Counsel for Defendant.
STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; [PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER
GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., Senior 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 December 13, 2013.
2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until January 24, 2014 and to exclude time between December 13, 2013 and January 24, 2014, under Local Code T4. The United States does not oppose this request.
3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:
a) The United States has represented that the discovery associated with this case includes approximately 960 pages of discovery along with a CD containing photographs. All of this discovery has been either produced directly to counsel.
b) Counsel for defendant desires additional time to consult with his client, to conduct investigation and research related to the charges, to review discovery for this matter, to discuss potential resolutions with his client, and to otherwise prepare for trial. This includes meeting with the prosecution to discuss additional materials that were recently provided to counsel by the defendant, which counsel believes may be relevant to the potential disposition of this case.
c) Counsel for the defendant further advises he is set for trial in January 2014 in another matter, and will need time to prepare for that matter as well as attend to this matter.
d) Counsel for defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny him the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
e) The United States does not object to the continuance.
f) 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 ...