From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Marquez

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Oct 2, 2015
13-378 JAM (E.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2015)

Opinion

The Law Office of Olaf W. Hedberg Olaf W. Hedberg, Sacramento, California. Attorney for Defendant MICHAEL KEATTS.

Maryann F. Bird, Attorney for Defendant LILLIAN MARQUEZ.


STIPULATION AND ORDER RE; CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE AND FINDINGS OF EXCLUDABLE TIME

JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.

It is hereby stipulated and agreed to by the United States of America through PHILIP A. FERRARI, Assistant United States Attorney, LILLIAN MARQUEZ, by and through her counsel, MARYANN F. BIRD, and MICHAEL KEATTS, by and through his counsel, OLAF W. HEDBERG, that the status conference set for October 6, 2015, be continued to a status conference on Tuesday, December 1, 2015, at 9:15 a.m. This continuance is being requested because defense counsel needs additional time to prepare, to review discovery, and to continue interviewing witnesses. Both Defense counsel have come into the case recently, and have replaced predecessor counsel. Counsel has received over 33, 000 pages of discovery involving over 23 different residential real properties in Stockton and Manteca and we will need additional time to read the discovery and go over it with our clients.

Furthermore, the parties stipulate and agree that the interest of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. (18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(A)). Speedy trial time is to be excluded from the date of this order through the date of the status conference set for December 1, 2015, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(7)(B)(iv) [reasonable time to prepare] (Local Code T4).

ORDER

Based on the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing, the Court hereby finds that the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court specifically finds that the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. Based on these findings and pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the Court hereby adopts the stipulation of the parties in its entirety as its Order. Time is excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this matter must be commenced beginning from the date of the stipulation through and including December 1, 2015, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) [reasonable time for defense counsel to prepare] and Local Code T4. A new status conference date is hereby set for December 1, 2015, at 9:15 a.m.


Summaries of

United States v. Marquez

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Oct 2, 2015
13-378 JAM (E.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2015)
Case details for

United States v. Marquez

Case Details

Full title:THE UNITED STAES OF AMERICA, v. LIILIAN MARQUEZ, MICHAEL KEATTS

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

Date published: Oct 2, 2015

Citations

13-378 JAM (E.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2015)