From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. LI

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Mar 26, 2015
2:14-CR-0340 MCE (E.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2015)

Opinion

          BENJAMIN B. WAGNER, United States Attorney, CHRISTIAAN H. HIGHSMITH, Assistant United States Attorney, Sacramento, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff, United States of America.

          PHILIP COZENS, Counsel for Defendant, Chunjin Zhu, CHRIS COSCA, Counsel for Defendant, Qiguang Li.


          STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; ORDER

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

         STIPULATION

         1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on March 26, 2015.

         2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until April 23, 2015, and to exclude time between March 26, 2015, and April 23, 2015, under Local Code T4.

         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 170 pages and two DVDs of photographs. All of this discovery has been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying.

b) Counsel for defendants desire additional time to review discovery and to confer with their clients concerning discovery in the presence of a Cantonese interpreter. There has been some delay in counsel conferring with their clients because of the difficulty securing and scheduling a Cantonese interpreter.

c) Counsel for defendants believe that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny counsel 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 March 26, 2015 to April 23, 2015, 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 defendants' 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. LI

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Mar 26, 2015
2:14-CR-0340 MCE (E.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2015)
Case details for

United States v. LI

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. QIGUANG LI, and, CHUNJIN ZHU…

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

Date published: Mar 26, 2015

Citations

2:14-CR-0340 MCE (E.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2015)