From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Heinen

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California, Sacramento Division
Sep 4, 2013
09-CR-00413-MCE-5 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 4, 2013)

Opinion

          EAN VIZZI, SBN 209444, San Francisco, CA, Attorney for Defendant, LAURA HEINEN.

          BENJAMIN B. WAGNER, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY MICHAEL M. BECKWITH, Assistant U.S. Attorney.


          STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

          MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge.

         IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between the United States of America, through its attorney of record, Michael M. Beckwith, Assistant U.S. Attorney; and, the defendant Laura Heinen, through her attorney, Ean Vizzi, that the status conference scheduled for September 5, 2013, be continued to December 12, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. The parties have been in settlement negotiations and have reached a tentative agreement for a misdemeanor disposition. The matter is currently on calendar before Magistrate Edmund F. Brennan on September 4, 2013 for a change of plea hearing and counsel expect sentencing to be scheduled on that date after change of plea. Should plea negotiations fail, counsel will require sufficient time to prepare the case for jury trial. The parties request and agree that exclusion of additional time under the Speedy Trial Act to allow adequate preparation of counsel to work towards negotiation and settlement of this matter.

         The parties stipulate and agree that the time from the date of this stipulation, September 5, 2013, through and including December 12, 2013, shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) and Local Code T4 (time for defense counsel to prepare and continuity of defense counsel).

          ORDER

         The Court, having considered the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefrom, adopts the stipulation of the parties in its entirety as its order. Based on the stipulation of the parties, the Court finds that the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and defendant continuity of counsel. The Court specifically finds that the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the interests of the public and that the time from the date of the stipulation, September 5, 2013, to and including December 12, 2013, shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) and Local Code T4 (time for defense counsel to prepare and continuity of defense counsel).

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Heinen

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California, Sacramento Division
Sep 4, 2013
09-CR-00413-MCE-5 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 4, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Heinen

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. LAURA HEINEN Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California, Sacramento Division

Date published: Sep 4, 2013

Citations

09-CR-00413-MCE-5 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 4, 2013)