From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Perez-Alvarado

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Jan 16, 2015
2:11-CR-0238 JAM (E.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2015)

Opinion

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

          Nirav K. Desai for MICHAEL PETRIK Assistant Federal Defender Counsel for Defendant


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

          Hon. John A. Mendez 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 agree and stipulate to, and request that the Court find, the following:

         1. On September 30, 2014, the parties appeared in Court, and the defendant was ordered and referred to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons for an in-custody mental health evaluation (Dkt. No. 12).

         2. On January 14, 2015, counsel for the government was informed that the defendant had been returned to custody in Sacramento, California.

         3. On January 15, 2015, the forensic evaluation report of the defendant's mental health evaluation was made available to the parties by the Court.

         4. By this stipulation, the parties request that this matter be placed on the Court's calendar for a status conference on February 3, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., and to exclude time between September 30, 2014, nunc pro tunc, and February 3, 2015, under Local Codes A and T4. The parties will require time to review the report in advance of the status conference, and the defendant's counsel will require time to discuss the report with his client in light of the discovery produced to date.

         5. 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.

         6. 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 September 30, 2014, nunc pro tunc, to February 3, 2015, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 3161(h)(1)(A) [Local Code A], and 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.

         7. 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.

         FINDINGS AND ORDER

         IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED


Summaries of

United States v. Perez-Alvarado

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Jan 16, 2015
2:11-CR-0238 JAM (E.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2015)
Case details for

United States v. Perez-Alvarado

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MIGUEL PEREZ-ALVARADO, Defendant.

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

Date published: Jan 16, 2015

Citations

2:11-CR-0238 JAM (E.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2015)