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. Benson

United States District Court, E.D. California

February 18, 2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
BRIANT BENSON Defendant.

Betty J. Williams (SB# 224793) Law Office of Williams & Associates, PC Sacramento, California Attorneys for Defendant

Phillip A. Talbert, Assistant United States Attorney

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 defendant, by and through his counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on February 20, 2014.
2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until May 15, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., and to exclude time between February 20, 2014 and May 15, 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 produced over 4, 000 pages of discovery associated with this case for defendant to review.
b. The defendant submitted a proffer to the government and subsequently reviewed additional substantial documents provided by the government.
c. In July 2013, defendant submitted over 500 pages of additional supplemental documents to the government for review.
d. Counsel for both parties desire additional time to meet and discuss possible case resolution without trial.
e. Given the foregoing good-faith efforts by both sides to resolve the case short of trial, the parties agree that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny counsel for both sides the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
f. The government does not object to the continuance.
g. 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.
h. 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 20, 2014 to May 15, 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. This time period is also deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A)&(B)(iv) and Local Code T-4.

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 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.