From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Boschke

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Dec 30, 2013
2:10-CR-00299-WBS (E.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2013)

Opinion

         BENJAMIN B. WAGNER, United States Attorney, JUSTIN L. LEE, Assistant United States Attorney, Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America.

         TONI CARBONE, Counsel for Defendant Angela Boschke.

         CLEMENTE JIMEBNEZ Counsel for Defendant Bernardo Laredo,


         STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER

          WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.

         STIPULATION

         1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on December 30, 2013.

         2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until March 3, 2014 at 9:30 a.m., and to exclude time between December 30, 2013, and March 3, 2014, under Local Code T4.

         3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:

a) Counsel for defendants desire additional time to review discovery, discuss potential resolution with their clients, and investigate and research issues related to sentencing mitigation.

b) Counsel for defendants believe that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny counsel 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 defendant 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 December 30, 2013, to March 3, 2014, 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.

         FINDINGS AND ORDER

         IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Boschke

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Dec 30, 2013
2:10-CR-00299-WBS (E.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Boschke

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ANGELA BOSCHKE, and BERNARDO…

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

Date published: Dec 30, 2013

Citations

2:10-CR-00299-WBS (E.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2013)