From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Reynoso

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 17, 2013
No. 2:06-CR-0264 WBS (E.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2013)

Opinion

No. 2:06-CR-0264 WBS

01-17-2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ADRIAN REYNOSO, Defendant.

JOSEPH SCHLESINGER Acting Federal Defender TIMOTHY ZINDEL Assistant Federal Defender Attorney for ADRIAN REYNOSO BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney JASON HITT Assistant U.S. Attorney


JOSEPH SCHLESINGER, Bar #87692
Acting Federal Defender
TIMOTHY ZINDEL, Bar #158377
Assistant Federal Defender
801 I Street, 3rd Floor
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: (916) 498-5700
Attorney for Defendant
ADRIAN REYNOSO

STIPULATION AND ORDER

CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE

AND EXCLUDING TIME


Date: January 22, 2013

Judge: Hon. William B. Shubb

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED between plaintiff, United States of America, and defendant, Adrian Reynoso, through their respective attorneys, that the status conference scheduled for January 22, 2013, may be continued to February 25, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.

Defense counsel again proposed a resolution of the case, which counsel for the United States has agreed to consider and may present to his supervisor. The parties are still also unsure about the availability of an essential witness. In order to afford time to complete their review and negotiations, the parties agree that time under the Speedy Trial Act should be excluded through February 25, 2013, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Respectfully submitted,

JOSEPH SCHLESINGER

Acting Federal Defender

_________________

TIMOTHY ZINDEL

Assistant Federal Defender

Attorney for ADRIAN REYNOSO

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

_________________

JASON HITT

Assistant U.S. Attorney

ORDER

The status conference is continued to February 25, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. The Court finds that time under the Speedy Trial Act shall be excluded through that date in order to afford counsel reasonable time to prepare. Based on the parties' representations, the Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________

WILLIAM B. SHUBB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

United States v. Reynoso

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 17, 2013
No. 2:06-CR-0264 WBS (E.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Reynoso

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ADRIAN REYNOSO, Defendant.

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

Date published: Jan 17, 2013

Citations

No. 2:06-CR-0264 WBS (E.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2013)