From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Darmoyan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 20, 2012
NO. 2:11-cr-467 JAM (E.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2012)

Opinion

NO. 2:11-cr-467 JAM

01-20-2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ZHORA DARMOYAN, Defendant.

DWIGHT M. SAMUEL Attorney for Defendant ZHORA DARMOYAN R. STEVEN LAPHAM Assistant U.S. Attorney CHIRSTOPHER HAYN-MYER Attorney for Defendant MARAT GALOYAN J. TONEY Attorney for Defendant MARTIN ATOYAN KRESTA NORA DALY Attorney for Defendant KRISTINE ATOYAN


DWIGHT M. SAMUEL (CA BAR# 054486)

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

Attorney for Defendant

Zhora Darmoyan

STIPULATION AND ORDER

IT IS HEREBY stipulated between the United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Assistant United States Attorney R. Steven Lapham, and defendant Zhora Darmoyan through his undersigned counsel Dwight Samuel, defendant Marat Galoyan through his undersigned counsel Christopher Haydn-Myer, defendant Martin Antoyan through his undersigned counsel J. Toney, and defendant Kristine Atoyan through her undersigned counsel Kresta Nora Daly, that the previously scheduled status conference date of January 24, 2012, be vacated and the matter set for status conference on March 20, 2012 at 9:30 a.m.

The reason for this request is that the above-named defense counsel need additional time to review discovery, conduct investigation, and/or engage in other defense preparation.

The parties further agree and stipulate that the time period from the filing of this stipulation until March 20, 2012, should be excluded in computing time for commencement of trial under the Speedy Trial Act, based upon the interest of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv) and Local Code T-4, to allow continuity of counsel and to allow reasonable time necessary for effective defense preparation. It is further agreed and stipulated that the ends of justice served in granting the request outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Accordingly, the parties respectfully request the Court adopt this proposed stipulation.

By: _________

DWIGHT M. SAMUEL

Attorney for Defendant

ZHORA DARMOYAN

_________

R. STEVEN LAPHAM

Assistant U.S. Attorney

_________

CHIRSTOPHER HAYN-MYER

Attorney for Defendant

MARAT GALOYAN

_________

J. TONEY

Attorney for Defendant

MARTIN ATOYAN

_________

KRESTA NORA DALY

Attorney for Defendant

KRISTINE ATOYAN
ITS SO ORDERED.

_________

Judge John A. Mendez

United States District Judge


Summaries of

United States v. Darmoyan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 20, 2012
NO. 2:11-cr-467 JAM (E.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2012)
Case details for

United States v. Darmoyan

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ZHORA DARMOYAN, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jan 20, 2012

Citations

NO. 2:11-cr-467 JAM (E.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2012)