Opinion
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER, United States Attorney, HENRY Z. CARBAJAL III, Assistant United States Attorney, Fresno, CA, Attorneys for the United States of America.
ROGER BONAKDAR, Counsel for Defendant CORNELIO ROJAS.
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE; FINDINGS AND ORDER
SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.
STIPULATION
The United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through his counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:
1. By previous order, this matter was set for status before the Court on April 20, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. Time was excluded under the Speedy Trial Act through April 20, 2015 by agreement of the parties, and with appropriate Court findings, based in part on the need to review the expected high volume of discovery.
2. After the status conference was set, the Court notified the parties that it would not, in fact, be in session on April 20, 2015, and requested that the parties reset the status conference to a mutually agreeable date.
3. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until May 18, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. before Judge Oberto, and to exclude time between the date of this stipulation and May 18, 2015 under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and 3161(h)(7)(B)(i) and (iv). The government joins in this request so that the status conferences of five other co-defendants can be heard at the same time on May 18, 2015.
4. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:
a. The government has represented that the forthcoming discovery associated with this case will be voluminous, including over 100, 000 allegedly counterfeit items, investigative reports and related documents. All of this discovery will either be produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying.
b. Counsel for defendant Cornelio Rojas desires additional time in preparation of this case. Defense counsel needs additional time to conduct investigation, review voluminous discovery and communicate with the government regarding the case. Additionally, the May 18, 2015 date was selected to coincide with the status conference of five other co-defendants in the case. Thus, the requested continuance will conserve time and resources for the parties and the court.
c. Counsel for defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny them the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
d. The government joins in the request for 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 the date of this stipulation to May 18, 2015, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and 3161(h)(7)(B)(i) and (iv) 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.
5. 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.
ORDER
The time period of the present date through May 18, 2015, inclusive, is excluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), & B(i), (iv), because it results from a continuance granted by the Court at defendant's request and the ends of justice served by the time exclusion outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.