Opinion
ERIK BABCOCK LAW OFFICES OF ERIK BABCOCK Oakland Ca Attorneys for Defendant RAJESHWAR SINGH
COLIN L. COOPER Attorney for Defendant Surjit Singh.
MICHAEL CHASTAINE Attorney for Defendant Anita Sharma.
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
STIPULATION
Erik Babcock, attorney for Rajeshwar Singh, Colin L. Cooper, attorney for Surjit Singh, Michael Chastaine, attorney for Anita Sharma, and Jared Dolan, attorney for the United States of America, hereby stipulate as follows:
1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on October 8, 2015.
2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until November 19, 2015 and to exclude time between October 8, 2015 and November 19, 2015, under Local Code T4.
3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:
a) Erik Babcock desires additional time to review the discovery, conduct Investigation and consult with his client. Counsel also desires additional time to continue discussions with the prosecution to determine if this case can be resolved with a negotiated disposition. In addition, Mr. Babcock is unavailable for the status conference set on October 8, 2015 because of a post-trial sentencing hearing set that same morning in the Northern District.
b) Counsel for all defendants believe that the 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.
c) The government does not object to the continuance.
d) 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 defendants in a trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act.
e) 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 8, 2015 to November 19, 2015, 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 defendants' 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.
ORDER
For the reasons stated above, the Court sets Thursday, November 19, 2015 at the hour of 9:30 a.m. as the date for the status conference. The court also finds that the exclusion of this period from the time limits applicable under 18 U.S.C. §3161 is warranted, and that the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial for the periods from October 8, 2015 to November 19, 2015, see 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(A); and that the failure to grant the requested exclusion of time would deny counsel for the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation and continuity of counsel, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. See 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
IT IS SO ORDERED.