From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Lovan

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Jun 5, 2015
1:13-cr-00294 LJO-SKO-1 (E.D. Cal. Jun. 5, 2015)

Opinion

          HEATHER E. WILLIAMS, Federal Defender, ANDRAS FARKAS, Assistant Federal Defender Designated Counsel for Service, Fresno, CA, Attorneys for Defendant IANE LOVAN.

          BENJAMIN B. WAGNER, United States Attorney, KEVIN P. ROONEY, Assistant United States Attorney, Attorney for Plaintiff.

          LAW OFFICES OF HARRY M. DRANDELL HARRY M. DRANDELL, Attorney for Defendant VONG SOUTHY.

          DANIEL L. HARRALSON LAW CORP., DANIEL L. HARRALSON, Attorney for Defendant, SOMPHANE MALATHONG.

          WANGER, JONES, HELSLEY, P.C., PETER MICHAEL JONES, Attorney for Defendant KHAMPHOU KHOUTHONG.


          STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE HEARING; ORDER

          LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.

         IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties through their respective counsel, KEVIN P. ROONEY, Assistant U.S. Attorney, counsel for plaintiff, ANDRAS FARKAS, Assistant Federal Defender, counsel for defendant, IANE LOVAN, HARRY M. DRANDELL, counsel for VONG SOUTHY, DANIEL L. HARRALSON, counsel for SOMPHANE MALATHONG, PETER M. JONES, counsel for KHAMPHOU KHOUTHONG, that the status conference in this matter presently set for June 8, 2015 be continued to July 20, 2015, at 8:30 a.m.

         The reason for this request is that briefing on a procedural issue was completed on May 29, 2015 and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has not issued a ruling. The requested continuance will conserve time and resources for both parties and the court.

         The parties agree that the delay resulting from the continuance shall be excluded in the interests of justice, including but not limited to, the need for the period of time set forth herein for effective defense preparation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(ii), (iv).

          ORDER

         For the reasons set forth above, the request for continuance of status conference hearing is granted for good cause. The Court finds that the interest of justice outweighs the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, and time is excluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161 (h)(7)(A) and (B)(ii), (iv).

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Lovan

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Jun 5, 2015
1:13-cr-00294 LJO-SKO-1 (E.D. Cal. Jun. 5, 2015)
Case details for

United States v. Lovan

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. IANE LOVAN, ET AL., Defendant.

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

Date published: Jun 5, 2015

Citations

1:13-cr-00294 LJO-SKO-1 (E.D. Cal. Jun. 5, 2015)