DAVID D. FISCHER (SBN 224900) LAW OFFICES OF DAVID D. FISCHER, APC, Sacramento, CA, Attorney for Defendant NEMESSIS ROSENDO VENEGAS.
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER, U.S. ATTORNEY, SAMUEL WONG, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Attorney for Plaintiff.
MICHAEL PETRIK, Attorney for Defendant EDILIO NAVARRO.
STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
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 January 30, 2014.
2. By this stipulation, the defendants now move to continue the status conference until March 6, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. and to exclude the time period between the date of this stipulation, January 22, 2014, and the proposed new status conference hearing date, March 6, 2014, from computation of time within which the trial of this matter must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(A) and (B)(iv) and Local Code T4. Plaintiff does not oppose this request.
3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find and order 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 has provided documents and other materials as reciprocal discovery to the government. The government reviewed the materials and the parties are engaged in plea negotiations.
b. Counsel for the defendants also desire 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 ...