From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Isom

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Mar 24, 2015
11-CR-0033 WBS (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2015)

Opinion

          William E. Bonham, Attorney At Law, Sacramento, CA, Attorney for defendant, DARRYL ISOM.


          STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE MOTION HEARING DATE AND MODIFY MOTION BRIEFING SCHEDULE

          WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.

         The defendant, DARRYL ISOM, by and through his undersigned counsel and the United States by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby agree and request that the motion hearing currently set for Monday, April 6, 2015 at 9:30 am be vacated and reset for Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 9:30 am.

         The parties further agree and request that the motion briefing schedule be modified as follows:

Opposition due: Friday, April 10, 2015

Reply due: Monday, May 18, 2015

Motion hearing: Tuesday, May 26, 2015, at 9:30 am.

         A continuance is necessary because defense counsel is currently in trial in Sacramento County Superior Court in the matter of People v. Aguilera, case no. 11F06897, and the trial is expected to last at least 2 weeks. In addition, AUSA William Wong will be out of the office and out of the state from approximately April 13, 2015 to May 20, 2015 while dealing with a personal/medical matter.

         The parties further stipulate that the failure to grant a continuance in this matter would deny counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence; that the ends of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial; and that time should be excluded from the computation of time within which trial must commence under the Speedy Trial Act from March 24, 2015, up to and including May 26, 2015, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) and Local Code T-4, to allow defense counsel reasonable time to prepare, and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D) and Local Code E upon the filing of motions.

         I, William E. Bonham, the filing party, have received authorization from AUSA William Wong to sign and submit this stipulation and proposed order on his behalf.

          ORDER

         The motion hearing currently set for Monday, April 6, 2015 at 9:30 am is vacated and reset for Monday, May 26, 2015, at 9:30 am. It is further ordered that the motion briefing schedule is modified as follows:

Oppositions due: Friday, April 10, 2015

Reply due: Monday, May 18, 2015

Motion hearing: Tuesday, May 26, 2015, at 9:30 am.

         Court finds that the failure to grant such a continuance would deny counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. Accordingly, the time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act is excluded from the date of the parties' stipulation, March 24, 2015, up to and including the date of the new motion hearing, May 26, 2015, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) and Local Code T4 and 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D) and Local Code E upon the filing of motions. The Court specifically finds that the ends of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and defendants in a speedy trial within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h) (7) (A) and (B) (IV) and Local Code T-4.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Isom

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Mar 24, 2015
11-CR-0033 WBS (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2015)
Case details for

United States v. Isom

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DARRYL ISOM, Defendant.

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

Date published: Mar 24, 2015

Citations

11-CR-0033 WBS (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2015)