From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Bradford

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 14, 2013
Case No.: 2:12 CR 0126 MCE (E.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2013)

Opinion

Case No.: 2:12 CR 0126 MCE

03-14-2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MARQUIST BRADFORD, Defendant.

MICHAEL CHASTAINE Attorney for Jeremy Gachago BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney MATT MOORSE Assistant U.S. Attorney


MICHAEL CHASTAINE, State Bar #121209
THE CHASTAINE LAW OFFICE
2377 Gold Meadow Way, Suite 100
Gold River, CA 95670
Telephone: 916-732-7150
Attorneys for Defendant
Marquist Bradford

STIPULATION AND ORDER

CONTINUING STATUS CONFERNCE

It is hereby stipulated between the parties, Matt Moorse, Assistant United States Attorney, and Michael Chastaine, attorney for Marquist Bradford, that the status conference date of Thursday, March 14, 2013 should be continued until Thursday May 2, 2013. The continuance is necessary as counsel for Mr. Bradford is still reviewing discovery, meeting with the client and investigating information as well as researching various possible resolutions.

IT IS STIPULATED that the period of time from the March 14, 2013 up to and including May 2, 2013 be excluded in computing the time within which the trial must commence under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7) and Local Code T4, for ongoing preparation of counsel. It is further stipulated that the need for a continuance and continued counsel preparation outweighs the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

By: ____________________

MICHAEL CHASTAINE

Attorney for Jeremy Gachago

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

By: ____________________

MATT MOORSE

Assistant U.S. Attorney

ORDER

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, in that it is the stipulation of the parties:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the status conference scheduled for Thursday, March 14, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. be continued to Thursday, May 2, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. and that the period from March 14, 2013 to May 2, 2013 is excludable from calculation under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(A) and local rule T4. Further, that the need for a continuance and continued counsel preparation outweighs the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

United States v. Bradford

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 14, 2013
Case No.: 2:12 CR 0126 MCE (E.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Bradford

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MARQUIST BRADFORD, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 14, 2013

Citations

Case No.: 2:12 CR 0126 MCE (E.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2013)