From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Herrera

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 9, 2013
2:12-CR-0394 JAM (E.D. Cal. May. 9, 2013)

Opinion

2:12-CR-0394 JAM

05-09-2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ALVARO HERRERA, Defendant.

DAVID W. DRATMAN Attorney for Defendant ALVARO HERRERA BENJAMIN B. WAGNER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: Jill Thomas* Assistant U.S. Attorney *Signed with permission


DAVID W. DRATMAN
Attorney at Law
State Bar No. 78764
1007 7th Street, Suite 305
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: (916) 443-2000
Facsimile: (916) 443-0989
Email: dwdratman@aol.com
Attorney for Defendant
ALVARO HERRERA

STIPULATION AND ORDER

CONTINUING HEARING, AND

EXCLUDING TIME UNDER

THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Assistant United States Attorney Jill Thomas, Counsel for Plaintiff; and, Attorney David W. Dratman, Counsel for Defendant Alvaro Herrera, that the status conference scheduled for May 14, 2013 be vacated and the matter be continued to this Court's criminal calendar on July 30, 2013, at 9:45 a.m. for further status.

Defense Counsel is continuing to review the discovery in the case with his client. In addition, the parties have discussed resolving this case, which will be impacted by Defense Counsel's additional efforts in reviewing the discovery, as well as his gathering materials to share with the Government prior to the next status conference. In addition, defense counsel has been preparing for and anticipates his engagement in a criminal trial scheduled to commence May 16, 2013 that will engage him for some weeks.

Accordingly, the parties believe that the forgoing justifies an exclusion of time from the calculation of time under the Speedy Trial Act. The additional time is necessary to ensure effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence; and, continuity of counsel. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv); Local Code T4. The interests of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv); Local Code T4.

_________________

DAVID W. DRATMAN

Attorney for Defendant

ALVARO HERRERA

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

By: Jill Thomas*

Assistant U.S. Attorney

*Signed with permission

ORDER

The Court, having considered the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefrom, adopts the stipulation of the parties in its entirety as its order. The Court specifically finds that the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the interests of the public and that the time from May 14, 2013 to and including July 30, 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 Local Code T4 (time for defense counsel to prepare and continuity of counsel)(18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________

HON. JOHN A. MENDEZ

United States District Court Judge


Summaries of

United States v. Herrera

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 9, 2013
2:12-CR-0394 JAM (E.D. Cal. May. 9, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Herrera

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ALVARO HERRERA, Defendant.

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

Date published: May 9, 2013

Citations

2:12-CR-0394 JAM (E.D. Cal. May. 9, 2013)