From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Pirt

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California, Sacramento Division
Aug 26, 2013
CR. S-11-00468 TLN (E.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2013)

Opinion

          JOSEPH J. WISEMAN, ESQ., CSBN 107403, WISEMAN LAW GROUP, P.C., Davis, California, Attorney for Defendant, JANIS SANTANA PIRT.

          SCOTT L. TEDMON, Attorney for Defendant, Stephen Douglas Pirt.

          Benjamin B. Wagner, United States Attorney.

          MICHAEL D. ANDERSON, Assistant U.S. Attorney.


          STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE

          KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.

         IT IS HEREBY stipulated between the United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Michael D. Anderson, Assistant United States Attorney, together with counsel for defendant Stephen Douglas Pirt, Scott L. Tedmon, Esq.; and counsel for defendant Janis Santana Pirt, Joseph J. Wiseman, Esq.; that the status conference previously set for August 29, 2013, be reset as a Change of Plea Hearing for September 19, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.

         Defense counsel requires additional time to review proposed plea agreements. Therefore, counsel for the parties stipulate and agree that the interests of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the defendants and the public in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(A) (continuity of counsel/ reasonable time for effective preparation) and Local Code T4, and agree to exclude time from the date of the filing of the order until the date of the Change Of Plea Hearing, September 19, 2013.

         IT IS SO STIPULATED.

          ORDER

         The Court, having received, read, and considered the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefrom, adopts the stipulation of the parties in its entirety as its order. Based on the stipulation of the parties and the recitation of facts contained therein, the Court finds that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings and trial itself within the time limits established in 18 U.S.C. § 3161. In addition, the Court specifically finds that the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny defense counsel to this stipulation reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court finds that the ends of justice to be served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.

         The Court orders that the time from the date of the parties' stipulation, August 22, 2013, to and including September 19, 2013, shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(ii) and (iv), and Local Codes T4 (reasonable time for defense counsel to prepare). It is further ordered that a Change Of Plea Hearing shall be set for September 19, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Pirt

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California, Sacramento Division
Aug 26, 2013
CR. S-11-00468 TLN (E.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Pirt

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JANIS SANTANA PIRT, et al.…

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

Date published: Aug 26, 2013

Citations

CR. S-11-00468 TLN (E.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2013)