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, June 15, 2015 at 9:30 am be vacated and reset for Monday, July 13, 2015 at 9:30 am.
The parties further agree and request that the motion briefing schedule be modified as follows:
Opposition due: Monday, June 29, 2015
Reply due: Monday, July 6, 2015
Motion hearing: Monday, July 13, 2015, at 9:30 am.
A continuance is necessary to allow the parties additional time for negotiations toward possible settlement. The government and the defendant's counsel have discussed a tentative resolution to the case. This tentative offer must be approved by the assigned prosecutor's supervisor and the defendant. Counsel for the defendant would like time to discuss this with the defendant. The defendant is currently housed in the Nevada County Jail which makes access more difficult in light of counsel's schedule. The parties are attempting to avoid the risks of further litigation by resolving the case by way of settlement. Counsel for the defendant feels it is in the best interests of the defendant to request this continuance with the goal of settlement.
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 May 28, 2015, up to and including July 13, 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 while this motion remains pending before the Court.
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, June 15, 2015 at 9:30 am is vacated and reset for Monday, July 13, 2015, at 9:30 am. It is further ordered that the motion briefing schedule is modified as follows:
Opposition due: Monday, June 29, 2015
Reply due: Monday, July 6, 2015
Motion hearing: Monday, July 13, 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, May 28, 2015, up to and including the date of the new motion hearing, July 13, 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 while this motion remains pending before the Court. 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.