From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Ruiz

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Oct 25, 2013
1:12-CR-00236 LJO-SKO (E.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2013)

Opinion

          HEATHER E. WILLIAMS, #122664 Federal Defender, ERIC V. KERSTEN, Bar #226429 Assistant Federal Defenders, Designated Counsel for Service, Fresno, CA. Attorney for Defendant BENJAMIN RUIZ

          BENJAMIN B. WAGNER, United States Attorney.

          BRIAN W. ENOS, Assistant United States Attorney, Attorney for Plaintiff.


          STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE WHILE LEAVING TRIAL ORDER THEREON

          LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.

         IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective counsel, BRIAN W. ENOS, Assistant United States Attorney, counsel for plaintiff, and ERIC V. KERSTEN, Assistant Federal Defender, counsel for defendant Benjamin Ruiz, that the date for status conference in this matter may be continued to January 20, 2014, or the soonest date thereafter that is convenient to the court. It is further requested that the motion filing schedule be amended, with motions due November 27, 2013, any response due January 10, 2013, and said motions be heard January 20, 2014. The date currently set for status conference is December 16, 2013. The requested new date is January 20, 2014. The May 20, 2014 trial date shall remain unchanged.

         If it appears that an evidentiary will be necessary to resolve the motions the court will be notified in advanced to allow the hearing to be set at a time convenient to the court.

         Time has already been excluded through the May 20, 2014 trial date. However, out of an abundance of caution, the parties agree that any delay resulting from the continuance shall be excluded as necessary for ruling on the motions and effective defense preparation pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§§3161(h)(1)(D), 3161(h)(7)(A) and 3161(B)(iv). For this reason, the ends of justice served by the granting of the requested continuance outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

          ORDER

         The intervening period of delay is excluded in the interests of justice pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§§3161(h)(1)(D), 3161(h)(7)(A) and 3161(B)(iv).

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Ruiz

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Oct 25, 2013
1:12-CR-00236 LJO-SKO (E.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Ruiz

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. BENJAMIN RUIZ, Defendant.

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

Date published: Oct 25, 2013

Citations

1:12-CR-00236 LJO-SKO (E.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2013)