From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Harsh

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California, Sacramento Division
Mar 11, 2013
CR S 12-CR-00339 MCE (E.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2013)

Opinion

          JENNIFER C. NOBLE, ESQ., CSBN 256952 WISEMAN LAW GROUP, P.C., Davis, California. Attorney for Defendant, EDWARD DANIEL HARSH II


          AMENDED STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE

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

         IT IS HEREBY stipulated between the United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Todd Pickles, Assistant United States Attorney and Jennifer C. Noble, attorney for defendant Edward Daniel Harsh II, that the status conference presently set for March 7, 2013 be continued to March 28, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., thus vacating the presently set status conference.

         The parties need additional time to discuss a possible resolution of the charges. Further, the defense has requested additional discovery from the government, which is still pending. Therefore, counsel for the parties stipulate and agree that the interests of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the defendants and the public in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(A) (continuity of counsel/reasonable time for effective preparation) and Local Code T4, and agree to exclude time from the date of the filing of the order until the date of the status conference, March 28, 2013.

         IT IS SO STIPULATED.

          ORDER

         The Court, having received, read, and considered the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefrom, adopts the stipulation of the parties in its entirety as its order. Based on the stipulation of the parties and the recitation of facts contained therein, the Court finds that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings and trial itself within the time limits established in 18 U.S.C. § 3161. In addition, the Court specifically finds that the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny defense counsel to this stipulation 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 the requested continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.

         The Court orders that the time from the date of the parties' stipulation, March 4, 2013, to and including March 21, 2013, shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(ii) and (iv), and Local Codes T4 (reasonable time for defense counsel to prepare). It is further ordered that the March 7, 2013, status conference shall be continued until March 28, 2013, at 9:00 a.m.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Harsh

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California, Sacramento Division
Mar 11, 2013
CR S 12-CR-00339 MCE (E.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Harsh

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. EDWARD DANIEL HARSH, II, Defendant.

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

Date published: Mar 11, 2013

Citations

CR S 12-CR-00339 MCE (E.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2013)