From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Frisbey

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 9, 2012
No. 2:09-CR-00513 MCE (E.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2012)

Opinion

No. 2:09-CR-00513 MCE

01-09-2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DALE R. FRISBEY, et al., Defendants.

DANIEL J. BRODERICK, Bar #89424 Federal Defender TIMOTHY ZINDEL, Bar #158377 Assistant Federal Defender Attorney for Defendant DALE R. FRISBEY TIMOTHY ZINDEL Assistant Federal Defender Attorney for DALE R. FRISBEY MICHAEL L. CHASTAINE Attorney for THOMAS G. COOPMAN HAYES H. GABLE, III Attorney for EDWIN B. TOOLE BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney SAMUEL WONG Assistant U.S. Attorney


DANIEL J. BRODERICK, Bar #89424

Federal Defender

TIMOTHY ZINDEL, Bar #158377

Assistant Federal Defender

Attorney for Defendant

DALE R. FRISBEY

STIPULATION AND ORDER

CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE

AND EXCLUDING TIME


Date: January 5, 2012

Time: 9:00 a.m.

Judge: Hon. Morrison C. England

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED between all defendants and plaintiff, United States of America, by and through their attorneys, that the hearing presently scheduled for January 5, 2012, may be continued to January 26, 2012, at 9:00 a.m.

The Court has previously found this case to be complex under the Speedy Trial Act due to the time-span of the charges, the filing of a parallel forfeiture action, and numerous searches involved in the investigation. The parties' discussions regarding resolution of the case have continued since the last status conference and additional research has been done, as well as additional investigation by counsel for Mr. Frisbey in the form of a defense inspection of the evidence seized and discussions with the law enforcement investigators in this case. The parties were unable to meet during the holidays but plan to do so over the next three weeks. The parties agree and stipulate that the Court should find that the requested additional continuance of the trial date is necessary to allow time for counsel to prepare and complete their review of this case and conduct plea negotiations, and allow defense counsel time to explain the ramifications of any plea offer to their respective clients. The parties agree and stipulate that the Court should find that this case remains complex and additional preparation time is needed by all defense counsel, and that time under the Speedy Trial Act should be excluded from the date of this stipulation through January 26, 2012, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(ii) and (iv) and Local Codes T2 and T4.

Respectfully Submitted,

DANIEL J. BRODERICK

Federal Defender

_________________________

TIMOTHY ZINDEL

Assistant Federal Defender

Attorney for DALE R. FRISBEY

T. Zindel for M. Chastaine

MICHAEL L. CHASTAINE

Attorney for THOMAS G. COOPMAN

T. Zindel for H. Gable

HAYES H. GABLE, III

Attorney for EDWIN B. TOOLE

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

By: T. Zindel for S. Wong

SAMUEL WONG

Assistant U.S. Attorney

ORDER

The Court having received, read, and considered the parties' stipulation, and good cause appearing therefrom, the Court adopts the stipulation in its entirety as its order. The status conference is continued to January 26, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. Based on the stipulation of the parties and the recitation of facts contained therein, the Court finds that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings and trial itself within the time limits established in 18 U.S.C. § 3161 and that the case is unusual and complex within the meaning of the Speedy Trial Act. The Court finds that the failure to grant the requested continuance would deny each defendant's counsel reasonable time for effective preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court finds that a continuance is necessary for the reasons stated above and further finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. Time within which the trial of this case must be commenced is therefore excluded from the date of the parties' stipulation, January 4, 2012, through and including January 26, 2012, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(A) and (b)(ii) and (iv) and Local Codes T2 and T4.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

United States v. Frisbey

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 9, 2012
No. 2:09-CR-00513 MCE (E.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2012)
Case details for

United States v. Frisbey

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DALE R. FRISBEY, et al.…

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

Date published: Jan 9, 2012

Citations

No. 2:09-CR-00513 MCE (E.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2012)