From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Thomas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION
Mar 8, 2013
NO. 2:11-cr-00216-MCE (E.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2013)

Opinion

NO. 2:11-cr-00216-MCE

03-08-2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. REGINALD THOMAS, Defendant.

COLIN L. COOPER, SBN 144291 KELLIN R. COOPER, SBN 172111 DUSTIN GORDON, SBN 205216 COOPER LAW OFFICES Attorneys for Defendant REGINALD THOMAS JULIUS ENGEL Attorney for Defendant DESHAWN RAY MATTHEW MORRIS Assistant United States Attorney


COLIN L. COOPER, SBN 144291
KELLIN R. COOPER, SBN 172111
DUSTIN GORDON, SBN 205216
COOPER LAW OFFICES
Attorneys for Defendant
REGINALD THOMAS

STIPULATION AND ORDER

CONTINUING STATUS

CONFERENCE

Defendant REGINALD THOMAS, by and through his attorney, Colin Cooper, defendant DESHAWN RAY, by and through his attorney, Julius Engel, the UNITED STATES, by and through Assistant United States Attorney Matthew Morris, hereby stipulate and agree to continue the status conference in the above-captioned case set for March 7, 2013 to April 4, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. The continuance is requested to allow defendant's counsel additional time for preparation.

The parties further stipulate and agree that the period from March 7, 2013 to April 4, 2013, is excludable from calculation under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161 (h)(7)(iv) for the effective preparation of counsel.

Defendants DESHAWN RAY and REGINALD THOMAS are reviewing discovery and investigating the case.

The requested continuance is not based on congestion of the Court's calendar, lack of diligent preparation on the part of the attorney for the government or the defense, or failure on the part of the attorney for the government to obtain available witnesses. Under 18 U.S.C. Section 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv) and local code T4, the delay results from a continuance granted by the Court at the defendant's request, with the agreement of the government, on the basis of the Court's finding that: (i) the delay will allow defense counsel reasonable time to prepare; and (ii) the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and defendant in a speedy trial. See Bloate v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 1345, 1357-58 (2011).

COLIN L. COOPER

Attorney for Defendant REGINALD THOMAS

JULIUS ENGEL

Attorney for Defendant DESHAWN RAY

MATTHEW MORRIS

Assistant United States Attorney

ORDER

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, in that it is the stipulation of the parties: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the status conference scheduled for March 7, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. is vacated and the matter is set for status conference on April 4, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., and that the period from March 7, 2013 to April 4, 2013, is excludable from calculation under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

United States v. Thomas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION
Mar 8, 2013
NO. 2:11-cr-00216-MCE (E.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Thomas

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. REGINALD THOMAS, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION

Date published: Mar 8, 2013

Citations

NO. 2:11-cr-00216-MCE (E.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2013)