From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. White

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Oct 1, 2013
CR. S-13-184-TLN (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2013)

Opinion

          HEATHER E. WILLIAMS, #122664 Federal Defender, RACHELLE BARBOUR, #185395 Research & Writing Attorney, Sacramento, CA, Attorney for Defendant DAVID MICHAEL WHITE.

          BENJAMIN WAGNER, United States Attorney.

          MICHELE BECKWITH, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Attorney for Plaintiff.


          STIPULATION AND ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND MOTION HEARING AND EXCLUDING TIME

          TROY L. NUNLEY District Judge.

         IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective counsel, MICHELE BECKWITH, Assistant United States Attorney, attorney for Plaintiff, and RACHELLE BARBOUR, Staff Attorney, attorney for Defendant, DAVID MICHAEL WHITE, that the motion to dismiss hearing set for November 7, 20133 be vacated and that a new briefing schedule and a hearing date for a motion to dismiss be set. The parties request that the hearing date for the motion to dismiss be set for December 5, 2013 at 9:30 a.m., and that the briefing schedule be set as follows:

         Opposition to Motion Due: November 7, 2013

         Reply Due: November 21, 2013

         The parties stipulate the time between today's date and the filing of the motion should be excluded under 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(7)(B)(iv) [reasonable time to prepare] (Local Code T4) and that the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. The parties also stipulation that the time from the filing of the motion until it is heard must be excluded under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(d)[pendency of motion](Local Code E). Accordingly, speedy trial time is to be excluded from the date of this order through the date of the hearing set for December 5, 2013.

          ORDER

         The Court, having received, read, and considered the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefrom, adopts the stipulation of the parties in its entirety as its order. Time is excluded to provide defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court finds that the ends of justice to be served by granting the requested briefing schedule and continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and defendant in a speedy trial.

         The Court orders that the time from the date of this order, up to and including December 5, 2013, shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv)(reasonable time for counsel to prepare - Local Code T4). The proposed briefing schedule is adopted.


Summaries of

United States v. White

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Oct 1, 2013
CR. S-13-184-TLN (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. White

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DAVID MICHAEL WHITE, Defendant.

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

Date published: Oct 1, 2013

Citations

CR. S-13-184-TLN (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2013)