Opinion
CASE NO. 1:11-CR-00196
10-07-2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DAVID BRITT, Defendant.
RICHARD A. BESHWATE, JR. Attorney for Defendant, DAVID BRITT ELANA LANDAU Assistant U.S. Attorney
RICHARD A. BESHWATE, JR. 179782
ATTORNEY AT LAW
Attorney for Defendant, DAVID BRITT
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED
ORDER TO CONTINUE SENTENCING
HEARING
TIME: 10:00 am
JUDGE: Hon. Lawrence J. O'Neill
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective counsel RICHARD A. BESHWATE, JR, attorney for Defendant, and ELANA LANDAU, Assistant U.S. Attorney for Plaintiff, that the sentencing hearing currently scheduled for October 14, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. shall be continued until NOVEMBER 4, 2011, at 9:00 a.m.
This request for continuance is made by counsel for defendant to allow Mr. Britt sufficient time to consider a motion to withdraw his plea based upon a significant difference in the sentence recommended by the government at the time the plea offer was made and the sentence recommended in the Pre-Sentence Report. Additionally, the continuance will allow additional time for defense to investigate Mr. Britt's prior conviction. Assistant United States Attorney Elana Landau has no objection to this requested continuance. The requested continuance will conserve time and resources for both counsel and the court.
The defendant and the government agree that any delay resulting from the continuance shall be excluded in the interest of justice pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i) & (iv), and that the defendant's need for a continuance outweighs the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.
Respectfully submitted,
RICHARD A. BESHWATE, JR.
Attorney for Defendant,
DAVID BRITT
Respectfully submitted,
ELANA LANDAU
Assistant U.S. Attorney
ORDER
The status conference in this case is continued to NOVEMBER 4, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. Based on the grounds set forth in the parties' stipulation, time is excluded in the interest of justice pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i) & (iv), and that the defendant's need for a continuance outweighs the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE