From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Rojas

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Dec 18, 2015
2:14-cr-00174-GEB (E.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2015)

Opinion

          Respectfully submitted, HEATHER E. WILLIAMS Federal Defender /s/ Heather E. Williams for Matthew M. Scoble Assistant Federal Defender Attorney for Alexander Antonio Rojas

          BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney /s/ by Heather E. Williams with consent Matthew Morris Assistant U.S. Attorney Attorney for Plaintiff


          STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE

          Hon. Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Judge

         IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Benjamin Wagner, U.S. Attorney, through Matthew Morris, Assistant United States Attorney, attorney for Plaintiff, and Heather Williams, Federal Defender, through Assistant Federal Defender Matthew M. Scoble, attorney for Alexander Antonio Rojas, that the status conference scheduled for January 9, 2015 be vacated and continued to February 20, 2015 at 9:00 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. Additionally, defense counsel has a family emergency and will not be available on the presently set date. Further, counsel prefers this case not be reassigned and requests the continuance. Based upon the foregoing, the parties agree time under the Speedy Trial Act should be excluded from this order's date through and including February 20, 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 February 20, 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 January 9, 2015 status conference shall be continued until February 20, 2015, at 9:00 a.m.


Summaries of

United States v. Rojas

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Dec 18, 2015
2:14-cr-00174-GEB (E.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2015)
Case details for

United States v. Rojas

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Alexander Antonio Rojas, Defendant.

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

Date published: Dec 18, 2015

Citations

2:14-cr-00174-GEB (E.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2015)