From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Christiansen

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
May 20, 2013
2:13-CR-00018-MCE (E.D. Cal. May. 20, 2013)

Opinion

          GREGORY W. FOSTER, (State Bar No. 121931) FOSTER LAW GROUP, Sacramento, CA. Attorney for Dean Christiansen

          BENJAMIN B. WAGNER, United States Attorney.

          Kyle Reardon, Assistant United States Attorney. Attorney for Plaintiff United States


          STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE; FINDING OF EXCLUDABLE TIME

          MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge.

         STIPULATION

         Plaintiff, United States of America, through Assistant U.S. Attorney Kyle Reardon; and defendant Dean Christiansen, through counsel Gregory W. Foster, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

         1. A status conference is currently set for May 16, 2013 at 9:00 a.m.

         2. By this stipulation, the above-named defendant now moves to continue the status conference to June 27, 2013 at 9:00 a.m., and to exclude time between May 16, 2013 and June 27, 2013 under Local Code T4. Plaintiff does not oppose this request.

         3. The basis upon which the parties agree to this proposed continuance of the status conference is as follows:

a. The government has provided defense counsel with the discovery associated with this case. All of this discovery has been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying, and/or will be made available.

b. Counsel for defendant has been reviewing these materials, discussing them with his client, and assessing potential trial and sentencing issues.

c. Additionally, the government has recently provided a proposed plea agreement to defense counsel, which defense counsel have been discussing with the defendant.

d. Defense counsel needs additional time, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, to review the materials described above and to discuss them with the defendant, and otherwise effectively prepare for the disposition of this case. Based on the Court's available calendars and the availability of defense counsel, the parties ask that the Court set this matter for a status conference on June 27, 2013, and that it find excludable time from May 16, 2013 to June 27, 2013 through and including the May 16, 2013 status conference.

e. Based on the above-stated findings, the ends of justice served by continuing the case and excluding time 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, 16 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq., within which trial must commence, the time period from March 14, 2013 to May 16, 2013, 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 by the Court at the defendants 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 defendants 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.

         5. Finally, Gregory W. Foster has been authorized by all counsel to sign this stipulation on their behalf.

         IT IS SO STIPULATED.

          ORDER

         In accordance with the foregoing stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED. The status conference in this matter is hereby continued from May 16, 2013 to June 27, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 7.


Summaries of

United States v. Christiansen

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
May 20, 2013
2:13-CR-00018-MCE (E.D. Cal. May. 20, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Christiansen

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DEAN LYNN CHRISTIANSEN…

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

Date published: May 20, 2013

Citations

2:13-CR-00018-MCE (E.D. Cal. May. 20, 2013)