From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Turcios

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Sep 25, 2015
2:15-MJ-00108 AC (E.D. Cal. Sep. 25, 2015)

Opinion

          BENJAMIN B. WAGNER, United States Attorney, Matthew M. Yelovich, Assistant United States Attorney, Sacramento, CA, Daniel P. Butler, U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division, Fraud Section, Washington, DC, Attorneys for Plaintiff, United States of America.

          Timothy Zindel, Office of the Federal Defender, Counsel for Defendant, David A. Turcios.


          STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING PURSUANT TO RULE 5.1(d) AND EXCLUSION OF TIME UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT CURRENT PRELIMINARY HEARING DATE: OCT. 5, 2015 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY HEARING DATE: NOV. 20, 2015

          ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.

         STIPULATION

         Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant DAVID A. TURCIOS, by and through defendant's counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

         1. By previous order, this matter was set for preliminary hearing on October 5, 2015.

         2. By this stipulation, the parties now move to continue the preliminary hearing date until November 20, 2015, at 2:00 P.M. before the duty United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to Rule 5.1(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and seek an Order from this Court excluding time until that date. The parties stipulate that the delay is required to allow the defense reasonable time for preparation, specifically, conducting legal and factual research and examining case files. The government sent discovery materials to defendant and defense counsel on August 20, 2015, with some follow-up discovery on August 25, 2015, and defense counsel will need time to review said discovery and conduct related case preparation. The parties are exploring a potential pre-indictment resolution of this case.

         3. The parties stipulate, and would ask the Court to so find, that, 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 an information or indictment being filed within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

         4. The parties agree that good cause exists for the extension of time and that the extension would not adversely affect the public interest in the prompt disposition of criminal cases. Therefore, the parties request that the time between October 5, 2015 (original preliminary hearing date), and November 20, 2015 (new date of the preliminary hearing), be excluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv), Local Code T-4.

         5. 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 an information or indictment must be filed.

         IT IS SO STIPULATED.

         [PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER

         IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Turcios

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Sep 25, 2015
2:15-MJ-00108 AC (E.D. Cal. Sep. 25, 2015)
Case details for

United States v. Turcios

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DAVID A. TURCIOS, Defendant.

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

Date published: Sep 25, 2015

Citations

2:15-MJ-00108 AC (E.D. Cal. Sep. 25, 2015)