From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Mathews

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Sep 18, 2015
2:15-CR-00118-MCE (E.D. Cal. Sep. 18, 2015)

Opinion

          Michael E. Hansen, Attorney-at-Law, Sacramento, CA, Attorney for Defendant EARSHELL HAYES.

          GREGORY FOSTER, Attorney for Defendant DAVID DIXON.

          MARK REICHEL, Attorney for Defendant MICHAEL MATHEWS.

          PHILIP COZENS, Attorney for Defendant LEON FIELDS, JR.

          BENJAMIN B. WAGNER, United States Attorney, PAUL HEMESATH, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Attorney for Plaintiff.


          AMENDED STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE, AND TO EXCLUDE TIME PURSUANT TO THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

          MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge.

         IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective counsel, Paul Hemesath, Assistant United States Attorney, attorney for plaintiff; Mark Reichel, attorney for defendant Michael Mathews; Gregory Foster attorney for defendant David Dixon; Philip Cozens attorney for defendant Leon Fields, Jr. and Michael E. Hansen, attorney for defendant Earshell Hayes, that the previously-scheduled status conference date of September 17, 2015, be vacated and the matter set for status conference on November 5, 2015, at 9:00 a.m.

         This continuance is requested because defense counsel needs additional time to review discovery received in this case. All counsel were retained or appointed within the last 120 days.

         The Government concurs with this request.

         Further, the parties agree and stipulate the ends of justice served by the granting of such a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial and that time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act should therefore be excluded under 18 U.S.C. section 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv), corresponding to Local Code T4 (to allow defense counsel time to prepare), from the date of the parties' stipulation, September 15, 2015, to and including November 5, 2015.

         Accordingly, the parties respectfully request the Court adopt this proposed stipulation.

         IT IS SO STIPULATED.

          ORDER

         The Court, having received, read, and 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 and the recitation of facts contained therein, the Court finds that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings and trial itself within the time limits established in 18 U.S.C. section 3161. In addition, the Court specifically finds that the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny defense counsel to this stipulation reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court finds that the ends of justice to be served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.

         The Court orders that the time from the date of the parties' stipulation, September 16, 2015, to and including November 5, 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. section 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv), and Local Code T4 (reasonable time for defense counsel to prepare). It is further ordered that the September 17, 2015, status conference shall be continued until November 5, 2015, at 9:00 a.m.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Mathews

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Sep 18, 2015
2:15-CR-00118-MCE (E.D. Cal. Sep. 18, 2015)
Case details for

United States v. Mathews

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL MATHEWS, et al., Defendant.

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

Date published: Sep 18, 2015

Citations

2:15-CR-00118-MCE (E.D. Cal. Sep. 18, 2015)