From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Johnston

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Dec 12, 2013
Cr. S-12-0238-MCE (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2013)

Opinion

          BENJAMIN B. WAGNER, United States Attorney, Kyle Reardon, Assistant U.S. Attorney.

          JAN DAVID KAROWSKY, Attorney at Law, A Professional Corporation, California State Bar Number 53854, Sacramento, CA, Attorney for Defendant, Eric Johnston.


          STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE

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

         The government and counsel for Eric Johnston are in the final stage of ongoing negotiations to settle the case on a global basis along with the Sacramento County District Attorney's office. All parties need a bit more time to iron out final details. Therefore, it is requested that the Status Conference set for December 12, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. be continued to January 9, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. I have spoken to AUSA Kyle Reardon who agrees to this request and further agrees that I may sign his name to it.

         STIPULATION

         Plaintiff, United States, and Defendant, Eric Johnston, through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree that the Court may re-set the date for the Status Conference to January 9, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. The parties further stipulate that time may be excluded from the Speedy Trial Act calculation from and including the date of December 12, 2013, the date currently set for the Status Conference, to and including January 9, 2014, the new Status Conference date, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) and Local Code T4 in order to give Counsel for the Defendants reasonable time to prepare. The parties stipulate that the ends of justice to be served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and defendants in a speedy trial.

         IT IS SO STIPULATED.

          ORDER

         Based on the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing therefrom, the Court hereby finds that the failure to grant a continuance of the date now set for a Status Conference in this case would deny respective counsel for both parties reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court specifically finds that the ends of justice served by the granting of such a continuance outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial and that the time within which the trial of this matter must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act is excluded during the time period from and including December 12, 2013, through and including January 9, 2014, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A)&(B)(iv) [reasonable time to prepare] and Local Code T4.

         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.


Summaries of

United States v. Johnston

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Dec 12, 2013
Cr. S-12-0238-MCE (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Johnston

Case Details

Full title:United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Eric Johnston, Defendant

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

Date published: Dec 12, 2013

Citations

Cr. S-12-0238-MCE (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2013)