From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Lopez-Betancourt

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Dec 3, 2013
2:13-CR-00075 TLN (E.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2013)

Opinion

          BENJAMIN B. WAGNER, United States Attorney, NIRAV K. DESAI, Assistant United States Attorney, Sacramento, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff, United States of America.


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

          TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.

         STIPULATION

         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, these related cases were set for a status conference on December 5, 2013, with a possible change of plea in case number 2:13-cr-00075 TLN and a possible admit/deny proceeding in case number 2:13-cr-00230 TLN.

         2. By this stipulation, the parties now move to continue the status conference until December 19, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., and to exclude time between December 5, 2013, and December 19, 2013, under Local Code T4.

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

a) The government has represented that the discovery associated with this case includes approximately 410 pages of documents, which was produced directly to defendant's prior counsel and forwarded to defendant's present counsel.

b) In part due to a very recent death in defendant's counsel's family, defendant's counsel desires additional time to consult with her client about a possible change of plea and admit/deny proceeding in light of the discovery produced in this case.

c) Counsel for defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny her 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 December 5, 2013, to December 19, 2013, 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.


Summaries of

United States v. Lopez-Betancourt

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Dec 3, 2013
2:13-CR-00075 TLN (E.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Lopez-Betancourt

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL OMAR LOPEZ-BETANCOURT, aka…

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

Date published: Dec 3, 2013

Citations

2:13-CR-00075 TLN (E.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2013)