Opinion
Pahoua C. Lor, LAW OFFICES OF PAHOUA C. LOR, Fresno, CA, Attorney for Defendant, KEVIN NOUTHAI YANG.
Karen A. Escobar, Assistant United States Attorney, for Plaintiff and/or Government.
STIPULATION REGARDING CONTINUNACE AND EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER
SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.
STIPULATION
Defendant, by and through his counsel of record, and Plaintiff, by and through its counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:
1. By previous stipulation, this matter was set for a status conference on September 8, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. for further defense investigation and consideration of supplemental discovery served by Plaintiff.
2. By this stipulation, the parties move to continue the matter to October 5, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. to allow Defendant additional time to fully and in good faith consider the offer made by the Government.
3. The parties agree and stipulate and request that the Court find the following:
a. Defendant, by and through his counsel, respectfully requests additional time to consider the offer made by the government.
b. Defendant has no prior criminal record and given the very serious nature of the charges alleged against Defendant, Defendant will need additional time to fully and in good faith consider the offer made by the Government.
c. Counsel for the parties believe that granting the extension may be judicially efficient in that it may reduce the need for a trial.
d. 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.
e. For purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trail Act, 18 U.S.C, § 3161, et seq., within which trial must commence, the time period of September 8, 2015 to October 5, 2015, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(7)(A) because it results from a continuance granted by the Court at the parties' request on the basis of the Court's finding that the ends of justices served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public.
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.
ORDER
This action has been pending since November 2014. At the status conference on July 27, 2015, the Court set a further status conference on September 8, 2015, and informed the parties that they shall be prepared to select a mutually agreeable trial date at the next status conference. As such, the parties' stipulated request for a continuance of the status conference is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.