Opinion
MICHAEL B. BIGELOW, Attorney at Law SBN 65211 Sacramento, California, Attorney for Defendant Irena Gerez
MICHELE BECKWITH, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney, Attorney for Plaintiff.
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS ORDER
JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
STIPULATION
Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through his counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:
1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on September 24, 2013.
2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference to October 8, 2013 at 9:45 a.m. in order to enter a plea of guilty or set the matter for jury trial, and to exclude time between September 24, 2013 and October 8, 2013 under Local Code T4. Plaintiff does not oppose this request.
3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:
a. The government has provided defense counsel with the discovery associated with this case, which includes voluminous records, including mortgage and bank records involving multiple transactions. The government has recently produced additional discovery to defendant, and defendant is in the process of obtaining additional documents through her own efforts. The parties need additional time to obtain and review these documents. Additionally, counsel for each party has met and conferred regarding a potential factual basis. Counsel for the defendant needs additional time to meet with his client, but scheduling an interpreter has slowed the process.
b. Counsel for defendant has received a plea agreement from the government and desires additional time to consult with his client, to review the current charges, to conduct investigation and research related to the charges, to discuss potential resolutions with his client, to prepare pretrial motions, and to otherwise prepare for trial.
c. Counsel for defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny him the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. Based on the Court's available calendars and the availability of the parties, the parties ask that the Court set this matter on October 8, 2013, at 9:45 a.m. to plead guilty or to set for trial and that it find excludable time from September 24, 2013, through and including the October 8, 2013. Because of the need for additional preparation outlined above, a denial of a continuance to October 8, 213 would deny the parties the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence
e. 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.
f. For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq., within which trial must commence, the time period of, September 24, 2013 to October 8, 2013 inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 3161(h)(7)(A), B (iv) [Local Code T4] (time to prepare), because it results from a continuance granted by the Court at defendant's 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 defendant 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 time within which a trial must commence.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED: that pursuant to stipulation the above referenced matter shall be continued until October 8, 2013 at 9:45 AM, and time excluded for the reasons set forth above.