Opinion
1:23-CR-00150-JLT-SKO
11-29-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JUSTIN L. ANDERSON, Defendants.
PHILLIP A. TALBERT United States Attorney JEFFREY A. SPIVAK, Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America
PHILLIP A. TALBERT United States Attorney JEFFREY A. SPIVAK, Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America
JOINT STATUS REPORT AND STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; ORDER
SHEILA K. OBERTO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This case is set for status conference December 6, 2023. As set forth below, the parties now move, by stipulation, to set the case for jury trial (estimate 3-5 court days) on July 23, 2024 and to exclude the time period between December 6, 2023 and July 23, 2024 under the Speedy Trial Act. The parties also ask that the December 6, 2023 status conference be vacated.
STIPULATION
Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through defendant's counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:
1. By previous order, this matter was set for status conference on December 6, 2023.
2. By this stipulation, the parties now move to set a jury trial for July 23, 2024, and to exclude time between December 6, 2023 and July 23, 2024 under Local Code T4. The parties also ask that the December 6, 2023 status conference be vacated.
3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:
a) The government has represented that the discovery associated with this case is includes hundreds of pages of documents, financial records, witness interviews, investigative reports, and other evidence. All of this discovery has been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying.
b) Counsel for defendant desires additional time to consult with his/her client, review the charges, conduct investigation and research, review discovery, discuss potential resolution of the case, and prepare for trial.
c) Counsel for defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny him/her the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
d) The government joins the request.
e) 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.
f) For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq., within which trial must commence, the time period of December 6, 2023 to July 23, 2024, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 3161(h)(7)(A), B(iv) [Local Code T4] because it results from a continuance granted by the Court at defendant's request on the basis of the Court's finding that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.
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.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.