From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Anaya-Quezada

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
May 20, 2015
15-cr-057 JAM (E.D. Cal. May. 20, 2015)

Opinion

          HEATHER E. WILLIAMS, Federal Defender, NOA E. OREN, Assistant Federal Defender, Designated Counsel for Service, Sacramento, California, Attorney for Defendant JOSE LUIS ANAYA-QUEZADA.

          BENJAMIN WAGNER, United States Attorney, KATHERINE LYDON, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Attorney for Plaintiff.


          STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDE TIME

          JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.

         IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Benjamin Wagner, U.S. Attorney, through Katherine Lydon, Assistant United States Attorney, attorney for Plaintiff, and Heather Williams, Federal Defender, through Assistant Federal Defender, Noa E. Oren, attorney for Jose Luis Anaya-Quezada, that the status conference scheduled for May 26, 2015 be vacated and continued to June 9, 2015 at 9:15 a.m.

         The reason for the continuance is to allow defense counsel to consult further with her client about discovery.

         Based upon the foregoing, the parties agree time under the Speedy Trial Act should be excluded of this order's date through and including June 9, 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.

         Counsel and the defendant also agree that the ends of justice served by the Court granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

          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 June 9, 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 May 26, 2015 status conference shall be continued until June 9, 2015, at 9:15 a.m.


Summaries of

United States v. Anaya-Quezada

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
May 20, 2015
15-cr-057 JAM (E.D. Cal. May. 20, 2015)
Case details for

United States v. Anaya-Quezada

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOSE LUIS ANAYA-QUEZADA, Defendant.

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

Date published: May 20, 2015

Citations

15-cr-057 JAM (E.D. Cal. May. 20, 2015)