From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Leithmann

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Apr 16, 2015
2:14-CR-0055 GEB (E.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2015)

Opinion

          BENJAMIN B. WAGNER, United States Attorney, MICHAEL D. McCOY, Assistant United States Attorney, Sacramento, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America.

          MICHAEL FANNON, Counsel for Defendant, John Richard Leithmann.


          STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; [PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER

          GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., District Judge.

         STIPULATION

         Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through defendant's counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

         1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on April 17, 2014.

         2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until May 15, 2015, and to exclude time between April 17, 2014, and May 15, 2015, under Local Code T4.

         3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:

a) The parties have been involved in plea negotiations, and the Government has recently extended a formal plea offer to the defendant. Defense counsel needs additional time to reevaluate the discovery previously provided by the Government, review the formal plea agreement with the defendant, and make recommendations to the defendant regarding acceptance or rejection of the offer. If the defendant decides to enter into the plea agreement, defense counsel will need additional time to prepare the defendant for a change of plea hearing.

b) Counsel for defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny him the reasonable time necessary to review the Government's formal plea offer with the defendant, and to effectively prepare for a possible change of plea, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

c) The government does not object to the continuance.

d) 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.

e) 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 17, 2014 to May 15, 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.

         [PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER

         IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Leithmann

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Apr 16, 2015
2:14-CR-0055 GEB (E.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2015)
Case details for

United States v. Leithmann

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOHN RICHARD LEITHMANN, Defendant.

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

Date published: Apr 16, 2015

Citations

2:14-CR-0055 GEB (E.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2015)