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. Stasyuk

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

January 15, 2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
VYACHESLAVA STASYUK, Defendant.

TASHA PARIS CHALFANT (SBN 207055), THE LAW OFFICES OF TASHA PARIS CHALFANT, Rocklin, California, Attorney for Defendant, VYACHESLAVA STASYUK.

U.S. ATTORNEY, MICHAEL D. ANDERSON, 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 defendant, by and through his counsel of record, hereby stipulate and request that the Court make the following findings and Order as follows:

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on January 16, 2014.

2. By this stipulation, the defendant now moves to continue the status conference until February 6, 2014, and to exclude time between January 16, 2014, and February 6, 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 government has represented that the discovery associated with this case includes approximately 381 pages of investigative reports and related documents in electronic form. All of this discovery has been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying.

b. Counsel for the defendant desires additional time to consult with her client and discuss the possible resolutions prior to deciding to set a trial date. Further, the defendant requires additional time to continue the ongoing investigation and of course, trial preparation. We anticipate that the next status conference will be for a change of plea or setting a trial date.

c. Counsel for the defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny her 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 January 16, 2014 to February 6, 2014, 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 the period within which a trial must commence.

ORDER

IT IS SO FOUND AND 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.