United States District Court, E.D. California
DAVID W. DRATMAN, Attorney at Law, State Bar No. 78764, Sacramento, Californiam, Attorney for Defendant, ROBERT K. ROBERSON.
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, MATTHEW G. MORRIS, Assistant U.S. Attorney.
AMENDED STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE, AND EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT.
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
The parties request that the status conference, currently set for February 20, 2014 at 9:30 a.m., be continued to May 8, 2014 at 9:30 a.m., and stipulate that the time beginning February 20, 2014 and extending through May 8, 2014, should be excluded from the calculation of time under the Speedy Trial Act. 18 U.S.C. § 3161.
Defense Counsel is continuing to review the discovery in the case, including making arrangements to view seized computer evidence and consulting with an expert as needed. Additional time is needed for Defense Counsel to review the discovery so that he can properly advise his client. In addition, the parties expect to be engaged in plea negotiations that will be impacted by the result of Defense Counsel's examination of the evidence in this case, his potential consultation with an expert, as well as his gathering materials to share with the Government prior to the next status conference.
Accordingly, the parties believe that the forgoing justifies an exclusion of time from the calculation of time under the Speedy Trial Act. The additional time is necessary to ensure effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence; and, continuity of counsel. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv); Local Code T4. The interests of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).
The Court, having considered the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefrom, adopts the stipulation of the parties in its entirety as its order. Based on the stipulation of the parties, the Court finds that the failure to grant the requested continuance would deny defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court specifically finds that the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the interests of the public and that the time from February 20, 2014 to and including May 8, 2014, shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this case ...