United States District Court, E.D. California
February 10, 2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
SIPPY LAL, Defendant.
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER, United States Attorney, PHILIP FERRARI, Assistant United States Attorney, Sacramento, CA Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America
MARK AXUP, ESQ., Counsel for Defendant SIPPY LAL
STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; [PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER
GARLAND E. BUERRELL, Jr., District Judge.
Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through defendant's counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:
1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on February 7, 2014.
2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until March 7, 2014, and to exclude time between February 7, 2014, and March 7, 2014, under Local Code T4.
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 excess of 4, 300 pages.
b) Counsel for defendant desires additional time Counsel for defendant desires additional time to consult with his client, to conduct investigation and research related to the charges, to review and copy discovery for this matter, to discuss potential resolutions with his client, and to otherwise prepare for trial, if necessary. In addition, the parties continue to actively seek resolution of this matter.
c) The government does not object to the continuance.
d) 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.
e) 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 February 7, 2014 to March 7, 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.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
[PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER
IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED.