Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

United States v. Beknazarov

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

December 31, 2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff
v.
BEKNAZAROV, et al. Defendant.

JOHN R. DUREE Jr., INC. A Professional Corporation. State Bar No. 65684 Sacramento, California, Attorney for Defendant

LEE BICKLEY, Assistant U.S. Attorney.

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief 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 19, 2013 at 9:00 am in Courtroom 7.

2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until March 20, 2014, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 7 and to exclude time between December 19, 2013 and March 20, 2014 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 parties have commenced negotiations but have not yet reached resolutions.

b. Counsel for defendant desires additional time to consult with his client, to review the current charges, to conduct investigation and research related to the charges, and to discuss potential resolutions with his client. The government has represented that the discovery with this case includes over 5, 000 pages of documents, e.g., investigative reports and material obtained via subpoena. All of this discovery has been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying.

c. 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.

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 December 19, 2013 to March 20, 2014, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 3161(h)(7)(A), B(iv) and 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 the period within which a trial must commence.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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