From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Hammond

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 31, 2012
Case No.: 2:11-CR-00486-WBS (E.D. Cal. Jul. 31, 2012)

Opinion

Case No.: 2:11-CR-00486-WBS

07-31-2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ALEXANDER G. HAMMOND Defendant.

LAW OFFICES OF JOHNNY L. GRIFFIN III JOHNNY L. GRIFFIN, III (SBN 118694) Attorney for ALEXANDER G. HAMMOND MATTHEW G. MORRIS 2 Assistant United States Attorney


LAW OFFICES OF JOHNNY L. GRIFFIN III

JOHNNY L. GRIFFIN, III (SBN 118694)

Attorney for ALEXANDER G. HAMMOND

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE


Date: August 6, 2012

Court: Hon. William B. Shubb

Defendant, by and through his undersigned counsel, Johnny L. Griffin III, and the United States of America, through Assistant United States Attorney Matthew G. Morris, hereby agree and stipulate to continue the status conference in the above captioned case from August 6, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. to September 24, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. This continuance is requested to allow counsel for Defendant additional time to further review computerized evidence and to meet with counsel for the Government to discuss the terms of the written plea agreement. In addition, the parties agree and stipulate that time be excluded from August 6, 2012 to September 24, 2012 pursuant to Local Code T4, and 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(8)(B)(iv).

The parties have been advised by this Court's Clerk that September 24, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. is an available date and time for a status conference on this matter.

_____________

JOHNNY L. GRIFFIN, III

Attorney for Defendant Alexander G. Hammond

_____________

MATTHEW G. MORRIS

Assistant United States Attorney Matthew G. Morris telephonically authorized attorney Johnny L. Griffin, III to sign this Stipulation and Order on his behalf.
--------

Assistant United States Attorney

ORDER

Based on the stipulation of the parties and good cause apparent therein, the Court hereby finds that the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny Defendant's counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court specifically finds that the ends of justice are served by the granting of such continuance and outweigh the interests of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial.

Based on these findings and pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the Court hereby adopts the stipulation of the parties in its entirety as its order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________

WILLIAM B. SHUBB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

United States v. Hammond

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 31, 2012
Case No.: 2:11-CR-00486-WBS (E.D. Cal. Jul. 31, 2012)
Case details for

United States v. Hammond

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ALEXANDER G. HAMMOND Defendant.

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

Date published: Jul 31, 2012

Citations

Case No.: 2:11-CR-00486-WBS (E.D. Cal. Jul. 31, 2012)