From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Boze

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 3, 2012
CASE NO. 2:07-CR-0423 GEB (E.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2012)

Opinion

CASE NO. 2:07-CR-0423 GEB

01-03-2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JEREMY THOMAS BOZE, Defendant.

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney HEIKO P. COPPOLA Assistant U.S. Attorney


BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

HEIKO P. COPPOLA

Assistant U.S. Attorney

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE JURY TRIAL AND EXCLUDE TIME

The parties request that the trial confirmation hearing date of December 23, 2011 and the trial date of January 17, 2012 be vacated and rescheduled for trial confirmation on April 27, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. and jury trial date May 22, 2012 at 9:00 a.m.

This continuance is requested because the government superseded the original indictment on December 22, 2011, adding a charge of receipt of child pornography. The new trial date of May 22, 2012 is the first available date for both defense and government counsel due to their respective jury trial schedules and government counsel's military obligations during March and April 2012. Additionally, both counsel will use the time between December 23, 2011 and May 22, 2012 to continue preparing for trial and further investigation of this matter. Defense counsel is also researching potential pretrial issues, anticipates the filing of pretrial motions and will need additional time to research and prepare those motions and to prepare for trial in light of the new charges leveled against the defendant.

By a prior stipulation, this Court excluded time up to and including January 17, 2012. The parties stipulate and agree that the time between January 17, 2012 and May 22, 2012 should be excluded from the calculation of time under the Speedy Trial Act. The parties stipulate that the ends of justice are served by the Court excluding such time, so that counsel for the defendant may have reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv) and Local Code T-4.

The parties stipulate and agree that the interests of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

Respectfully Submitted,

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

By: _______________

HEIKO P. COPPOLA Assistant U.S. Attorney

By: ______________

LINDA C. HARTER

Attorney for Defendant

SO ORDERED.

______________

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge


Summaries of

United States v. Boze

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 3, 2012
CASE NO. 2:07-CR-0423 GEB (E.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2012)
Case details for

United States v. Boze

Case Details

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

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jan 3, 2012

Citations

CASE NO. 2:07-CR-0423 GEB (E.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2012)