From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Pio

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Sep 22, 2015
1:15-CR-00188-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal. Sep. 22, 2015)

Opinion

          BENJAMIN B. WAGNER, United States Attorney, MICHAEL S. FRYE, Assistant United States Attorney, Fresno, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff, United States of America.

          MICHAEL IAN GAREY, Counsel for Defendant.


          STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATE

          BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.

         STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE

         Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and Defendant, by and through her counsel of record, stipulate to continue the status hearing, current set for September 28, 2015, to November 9, 2011, at 1:00 p.m.

         Defense counsel is scheduled to be in a federal sentencing hearing on September 28, 2015, in Idaho. In addition, defense counsel has a number of matters, including at least two trials, set in October 2015, which are requiring his attention and preparation. Counsel for the Defendant has received discovery in this matter and needs further time to investigate, study and prepare applicable motions, to address the possibility of settlement, and to further consult with the Defendant.

         The parties agree to exclude time to November 9, 2015, and agree that the continuance of the hearing date will serve the ends of justice, and that the need for a continuance outweighs the interest of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial, and that the delay occasioned by such continuance is excluded from the Speedy Trial Act's time limits pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

         IT IS SO STIPULATED.

          ORDER

         Based on the stipulation of counsel and for good cause, it is ORDERED that the 1st STATUS CONFERENCE hearing in this matter is continued from September 28, 2015, to November 9, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. before Judge McAuliffe. The court further finds that the ends of justice served by a continuance outweigh the interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, and that the delay occasioned by such continuance is excluded from the Speedy Trial Act's time limits pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).


Summaries of

United States v. Pio

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Sep 22, 2015
1:15-CR-00188-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal. Sep. 22, 2015)
Case details for

United States v. Pio

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MARTHA PATRICIA PIO, Defendants.

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

Date published: Sep 22, 2015

Citations

1:15-CR-00188-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal. Sep. 22, 2015)