Opinion
PATRICK K. HANLY, Sacramento, CA, Attorney for Defendant KEVIN LAMAR HUNT.
STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through his counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:
1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on April 30, 2015.
2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until May 14, 2015 and to exclude time between April 30, 2015 and May 14, 2015 under Local Code T4.
3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:
a. The government has produced discovery associated with this case.
b. Counsel for defendant requests additional time to review this discovery, to conduct investigation and research related to the charges, to discuss potential resolutions with his client, and to otherwise prepare for trial. The parties have received a pre-plea criminal history calculation by the Probation Department and are reviewing it.
c. Counsel for defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny him the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
d. The government does not object to the continuance.
e. Based on the above-stated findings, the ends of justice served by continuing the case 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, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq., within which trial must commence, the time period of April 30, 2015 to until May 14, 2015 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 granted by the Court at defendant's 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 defendant 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.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
ORDER
IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.