From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Barreto-Cruz

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Jul 27, 2015
2:15-cr-123 JAM (E.D. Cal. Jul. 27, 2015)

Opinion

          HEATHER E. WILLIAMS, Federal Defender, MATTHEW M. SCOBLE, Assistant Federal Defender, Sacramento, CA, Attorney for Defendant, PABLO BARRETO-CRUZ.

          BENJAMIN B. WAGNER, United States Attorney, Christiaan Highsmith, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Attorney for Plaintiff.


          STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE

          JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.

         IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Benjamin Wagner, U.S. Attorney, through Christiaan Highsmith Assistant United States Attorney, attorney for Plaintiff, and Heather Williams, Federal Defender, through Assistant Federal Defender Matthew M. Scoble, attorney for PABLO BARRETO-CRUZ, that the status conference scheduled for July 28, 2015 be vacated and be continued to September 8, 2015 at 9:15 a.m.

         Defense counsel requires additional time to review discovery with the defendant and pursue investigation, as well as continue negotiations toward a non-trial disposition.

         Based upon the foregoing, the parties agree time under the Speedy Trial Act should be excluded from this order's date through and including September 8, 2015, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161 (h)(7)(A)and (B)(iv)[reasonable time to prepare] and General Order 479, Local Code T4 based upon continuity of counsel and defense preparation.

          ORDER

         IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, the Court, having received, read, and considered the parties' stipulation, and good cause appearing therefrom, adopts the parties' stipulation in its entirety as its order. The Court specifically finds the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court finds the ends of justice are served by granting the requested continuance and outweigh the best interests of the public and defendant in a speedy trial.

         The Court orders the time from the date the parties stipulated, up to and including September 8, 2015, shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and(B)(iv) [reasonable time for counsel to prepare] and General Order 479, (Local Code T4). It is further ordered the July 28, 2015 status conference shall be continued until September 8, 2015, at 9:15 a.m.


Summaries of

United States v. Barreto-Cruz

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Jul 27, 2015
2:15-cr-123 JAM (E.D. Cal. Jul. 27, 2015)
Case details for

United States v. Barreto-Cruz

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. PABLO BARRETO-CRUZ, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Jul 27, 2015

Citations

2:15-cr-123 JAM (E.D. Cal. Jul. 27, 2015)