Opinion
CLEMENTE M. JIMÉNEZ, SBN 207136, Sacramento, CA, Attorney for Defendant, JAMES BRADLEY.
JILL THOMAS, Attorney for Plaintiff.
CHRISTOPHER BOOTH, Attorney for HERMAN KEESE.
MICHAEL CHASTAINE, Attorney for DEBORAH BARNES.
CHRISTOPHER COSCA, Attorney for MARCUS LAW.
DAVID FISCHER, Attorney for BRETT TOWNSEND.
STIPULATION AND ORDER VACATING DATE, CONTINUING CASE, AND EXCLUDING TIME
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Assistant United States Attorney Jill Thomas, Counsel for Plaintiff; Christopher Booth, Counsel for Defendant HERMAN KEESE; Michael Chastaine, Counsel for Defendant DEBORAH BARNES; Christopher Cosca, Counsel for Defendant MARCUS LAW; Clemente M. Jimenez, Counsel for Defendant JAMES BRADLEY; and David Fischer, Counsel for BRETT TOWNSEND, that the status conference scheduled for August 8, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., be vacated and the matter continued to this Court's criminal calendar on October 17, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. for further status conference. Discovery in this case is voluminous, consisting of hundreds of pages of discovery and several dozen hours of audio recordings. Counsel require additional time to confer with their respective clients. Furthermore, counsel for Mr. Bradley will be unavailable for the currently set status conference.
IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that time for trial under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3161 et seq. be tolled pursuant to Section 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv), (Local code T-4), and that the ends of justice served in granting the continuance and allowing the defendants further time to prepare outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant to a speedy trial.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED, that the status conference in the above-entitled matter, scheduled for August 8, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., be vacated and the matter continued to October 17, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., for further status conference. The Court finds that time under the Speedy Trial Act shall be excluded through that date in order to afford counsel reasonable time to prepare. Based on the parties' representations, the Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants to a speedy trial.