From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Perry

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Feb 4, 2013
NO. CR-S-12-353-WBS (E.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2013)

Opinion

NO. CR-S-12-353-WBS

02-04-2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. BARBARA PERRY, Defendant.

JOSEPH SCHLESINGER, #87692 Acting Federal Defender ANGELES ZARAGOZA, #270198 Assistant Federal Defender Attorney for Plaintiff BARBARA PERRY BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney Angeles Zaragoza for MICHAEL ANDERSON Assistant U.S. Attorney Attorney for Plaintiff


JOSEPH SCHLESINGER, #87692
Acting Federal Defender
ANGELES ZARAGOZA, #270198
Assistant Federal Defender
Attorney for Plaintiff
BARBARA PERRY

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS

CONFERENCE; ORDER EXCLUDING TIME


DATE: March 18, 2013

JUDGE: William B. Shubb

Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through her counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status conference on March 4, 2013.

2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until March 18, 2013 and to exclude time between March 4, 2013 and March 18, 2013 under Local Code T4. Plaintiff does not oppose this request.

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

a. Approximately 653 pages of discovery has been produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying.
b. Counsel for defendant desires additional time to consult with her client who is detained in Nevada
City, to review the current charges and discovery, to conduct investigation and research related to the charges, and to discuss potential resolutions with her client.
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 March 4, 2013 to March 18, 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.

JOSEPH SCHLESINGER

Acting Federal Defender

______________________

ANGELES ZARAGOZA

Counsel for Defendant

BARBARA PERRY

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

Angeles Zaragoza for

MICHAEL ANDERSON

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Attorney for Plaintiff

ORDER

IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED this 4th day of February, 2013.

______________________

WILLIAM B. SHUBB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

United States v. Perry

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Feb 4, 2013
NO. CR-S-12-353-WBS (E.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Perry

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. BARBARA PERRY, Defendant.

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

Date published: Feb 4, 2013

Citations

NO. CR-S-12-353-WBS (E.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2013)