From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Marshall

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Feb 22, 2013
Case No.: 2: 11-CR-0458 GEB (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2013)

Opinion

Case No.: 2: 11-CR-0458 GEB

02-22-2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Buena Marshall, Deborah Loudermilk and Kadesta Harris, Defendants.

MICHAEL M. BECKWITH Assistant U. S. Attorney CLYDE M. BLACKMON Attorney for Defendant Buena Marshall JAMES T. REILLY Attorney for Defendant Deborah Loudermilk J. TONEY Attorney for Defendant Kadesta Harris


CLYDE M. BLACKMON (SBN 36280)
ROTHSCHILD WISHEK & SANDS LLP
901 F STREET, SUITE 200
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 444-9845
Attorneys for Defendant,
BUENA MARSHALL

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER CONTINUING STATUS

CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDING TIME

UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT


Ctrm: 10 (Hon. Garland E.

Burrell)

The United States of America, through its counsel Assistant United States Attorney Michael M. Beckwith, defendant Buena Marshall, through her counsel Clyde M. Blackmon, defendant Deborah Loudermilk, through her counsel James T. Reilly and defendant Kadesta Harris, through her counsel J. Toney, stipulate that the status conference currently scheduled for February 22, 2013, may be continued to March 29, 2013.

A continuance of the status conference is necessary to provide the parties additional time in which to prepare and to explore the possibilities of a negotiated resolution of the case, at least as to some of the defendants. Therefore, the parties request that the Court continue the status conference now set for February 22, 2013, to March 29, 2013, at 9:00 a.m.

The parties further stipulate that pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv) time should be excluded from February 22, 2013, to March 29, 2013, to provide counsel with more time in which to prepare, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and that the granting of the continuance for the reasons stated will serve the ends of justice and outweighs the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

________________________

MICHAEL M. BECKWITH

Assistant U. S. Attorney

________________________

CLYDE M. BLACKMON

Attorney for Defendant Buena

Marshall

________________________

JAMES T. REILLY

Attorney for Defendant Deborah

Loudermilk

________________________

J. TONEY

Attorney for Defendant Kadesta

Harris

[PROPOSED] ORDER

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING upon the stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ordered that the status conference currently scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on February 22, 2013, is continued to March 29, 2013, at 9:00 a.m.

Based on the representation of the parties that additional time is required for adequate preparation by counsel, the Court finds that time is excluded from February 22, 2013, to March 29, 2013, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv) (Local Code T4) and that the granting of the continuance of the status conference serves the ends of justice and outweighs the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________________

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

Senior United States District Judge


Summaries of

United States v. Marshall

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Feb 22, 2013
Case No.: 2: 11-CR-0458 GEB (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Marshall

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Buena Marshall, Deborah Loudermilk…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Feb 22, 2013

Citations

Case No.: 2: 11-CR-0458 GEB (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2013)