From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Rangel

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Oct 17, 2013
2:13-CR-0117 GEB (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2013)

Opinion

          BENJAMIN B. WAGNER, United States Attorney, OLUSERE OLOWOYEYE, Assistant United States Attorney, Sacramento, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff, United States of America.


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

          GARHAND E. BURRELL, Jr., District 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 stipulate as follows:

         1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on October 18, 2013.

         2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until November 8, 2013, and to exclude time between October 18, 2013, and November 8, 2013, under Local Code T4.

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

a) The government has represented that the discovery associated with this case includes 119 bate-stamped pages and 11 CD/DVDs containing audio/video recordings of controlled substance transactions. This entire discovery has been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying.

b) Counsel for defendant desires additional time to consult with his client, to review the current charges, to conduct investigation and research related to the charges, to review and copy discovery for this matter, to discuss potential resolutions with his client, to prepare pretrial motions and to otherwise prepare for trial.

c) Counsel for defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny him/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 October 18, 2013 to November 8, 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.

         IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Rangel

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Oct 17, 2013
2:13-CR-0117 GEB (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Rangel

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JAIME RANGEL, Defendant.

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

Date published: Oct 17, 2013

Citations

2:13-CR-0117 GEB (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2013)