From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Boyle

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
May 28, 2015
2:13-CR-0332-GEB (E.D. Cal. May. 28, 2015)

Opinion

          CANDACE A. FRY, Sacramento, CA, Attorney for TINA MARIE BINI, Defendant.

          JAMES R. GREINER, Attorney for MATTHEW LEE BOYLE, Defendant.


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

          GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., Senior District Judge.

         It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the parties hereto, through their respective counsel, as follows:

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on May 29, 2015.

2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until June 12, 2015, and to exclude time between May 29, 2015, and June 12, 2015, under Local Code T4.

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

a. The Government this week transmitted proposed plea agreements to counsel for the defendants.

b. Counsel for defendants require additional time to review the agreements with their clients and they contemplate changes of pleas on June 12, 2015. Counsel for defendants believe that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny them 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. Section 3161, et seq., within which trial must commence, the time period of May 29, 2015, to June 12, 2015, 2015, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 defendants 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

         IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Boyle

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
May 28, 2015
2:13-CR-0332-GEB (E.D. Cal. May. 28, 2015)
Case details for

United States v. Boyle

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. TINA MARIE BINI and MATTHEW LEE…

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

Date published: May 28, 2015

Citations

2:13-CR-0332-GEB (E.D. Cal. May. 28, 2015)