Opinion
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER, United States Attorney, TODD A. PICKLES, Assistant United States Attorneys, Sacramento, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff, United States of America.
TODD LERA, ESQ., For the Defendant.
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT STIPULATION
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
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 September 10, 2015.
2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until October 22, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., and to exclude time between September 10, 2015 and October 22, 2015, under Local Code T4. The United States does not oppose this request.
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 investigative reports, workers' compensation benefits records, bank records, and other related documents in electronic form constituting approximately 2600 pages of documents. All of this discovery has been produced directly to counsel.
b. New defense counsel was appointed in May 2015 and has now received the discovery as well as the report prepared relating to the defendant's competency to stand trial.
c. Counsel has also recently requested a copy of the transcript of the competency hearing.
d. Counsel for defendant desires additional time to consult with his client and to review discovery for this matter, to engage in discussions with the United States regarding potential resolution, for which he will need to review discovery provided and the information provided to the United States, and to otherwise prepare for a possible trial..
e. Counsel for defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny him 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 September 10, 2015 to October 22, 2015, 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.
ORDER
IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED.