From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Jacobs

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Dec 4, 2013
2:12-CR-00323 MCE (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2013)

Opinion

          STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER

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

         STIPULATION

         Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and the defendant, by and through her counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

         1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on December 5, 2013.

         2. By this stipulation, the defendant now moves to continue the status conference until January 30, 2014, and to exclude time between December 5, 2013, and January 30, 2014, 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 represented that the discovery associated with this case includes approximately 4, 423 pages of investigative reports and related documents in electronic form. All of this discovery has been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying.

         b. Counsel for the defendant desires additional time to consult with his respective client, to review the current charges, to conduct investigation and research related to the charges, to review and copy discovery for this matter, to discuss potential resolutions with his client, to prepare pretrial motions, and to otherwise prepare for trial.

          DAVID D. FISCHER, (SBN 224900) LAW OFFICES OF DAVID D. FISCHER, APC, Sacramento, CA., Attorney for Defendant STACEY JACOBS.

          BENJAMIN WAGNER, U.S. ATTORNEY.

          LEE BICKLEY, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Attorney for Plaintiff.

          DAVID D. FISCHER, Attorney for Defendant, STACEY JACOBS.

          c. Counsel for the defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.


         d. The government does not object to the continuance.

         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 December 5, 2013, to January 30, 2014, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 3161(h)(7)(A), B(iv) [Local Code T4] 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 within which a trial must commence.

         IT IS SO STIPULATED.

          ORDER

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Jacobs

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Dec 4, 2013
2:12-CR-00323 MCE (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Jacobs

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. STACEY JACOBS, Defendant.

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

Date published: Dec 4, 2013

Citations

2:12-CR-00323 MCE (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2013)