From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Estrada

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Dec 20, 2013
13-cr-249 MCE (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2013)

Opinion

          HEATHER E. WILLIAMS, Federal Defender, MATTHEW C. BOCKMON, Assistant Federal Defender. Sacramento, CA, Attorney for Defendant, JOSE IVAN ESTRADA.

          DWIGHT M. SAMUEL, Attorney for RUBEN BOTELLO GUZMAN.

          RONALD J. PETERS, Attorney for JORGE VARGAS-GARCIA.

          BENJAMIN B. WAGNER, United States Attorney,

          PAUL HEMESATH, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Attorney for Plaintiff.


          STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE AND TO EXCLUDE TIME

          MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., District Judge.

         IT IS HEREBY stipulated between the United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Assistant United States Attorney Paul Andrew Hemesath, defendant Ruben Botello Guzman through his undersigned counsel Dwight Samuel, defendant Jose Ivan Estrada through his undersigned counsel Matthew C. Bockmon, and defendant Jorge Manuel Vargas-Garcia through his undersigned counsel Ronald James Peters, that the status conference date of December 19, 2013, be vacated and the matter set for status conference on January 30, 2014.

         The reason for the continuance is to allow defense counsel time to meet and confer with their clients, conduct further investigation, review discovery and prepare defense strategy.

          ORDER

         UPON GOOD CAUSE SHOWN and the stipulation of all parties, it is ordered that the December 19, 2013, status conference hearing be continued to January 30, 2014, at 9:00 a.m. Based on the representation of defense counsel and good cause appearing there from, the Court hereby finds that the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court finds that the ends of justice to be served by granting a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. It is ordered that time up to and including the January 30, 2014 status conference shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this matter must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) and Local Code T-4, to allow defense counsel reasonable time to prepare.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Estrada

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Dec 20, 2013
13-cr-249 MCE (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Estrada

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOSE IVAN ESTRADA, et al.…

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

Date published: Dec 20, 2013

Citations

13-cr-249 MCE (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2013)