From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Martinez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 27, 2011
1:10-cr-00235-AWI (E.D. Cal. Sep. 27, 2011)

Opinion

1:10-cr-00235-AWI

09-27-2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RAMON ARTURO MARTINEZ, Defendant.

Jeremy R. Jehangiri Assistant United States Attorney Ann Voris Attorney for Defendant Ramon Arturo Martinez


BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

JEREMY R. JEHANGIRI

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorneys for Plaintiff

United States of America

STIPULATION AND AGREEMENT TO

CONTINUE MOTION HEARING; ORDER

TIME: 1:30 p.m.

Honorable Anthony W. Ishii

The United States of America, by and through Assistant United States Attorney Jeremy R. Jehangiri, and Defendant Ramon Arturo Martinez, by and through his counsel, Ann Voris, submit this stipulation for the Court's consideration.

IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED:

1. The parties request that the motion to suppress hearing date in this case be continued from October 3, 2011, to October 17, 2011, at 1:30 p.m.

2. The parties stipulate that the time resulting from this pretrial motion should be excluded from the calculation of time under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D).

3. The parties stipulate that the ends of justice are served by the Court excluding such time, so that counsel for the United States and the defendant may have reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

4. The parties stipulate and agree that the interests of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

5. The parties are also engaged in extensive plea negotiations, and this case may be resolved without a trial. The parties stipulate that further discussions relating to a plea agreement and additional time to engage in such plea negotiations would allow for effective representation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and for efficient use of the Court's time and resources.

6. Defendant and his counsel have no objection to this continuance.

SO STIPULATED AND AGREED.

Jeremy R. Jehangiri

Assistant United States Attorney

Ann Voris

Attorney for Defendant

Ramon Arturo Martinez

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

United States v. Martinez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 27, 2011
1:10-cr-00235-AWI (E.D. Cal. Sep. 27, 2011)
Case details for

United States v. Martinez

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RAMON ARTURO MARTINEZ, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Sep 27, 2011

Citations

1:10-cr-00235-AWI (E.D. Cal. Sep. 27, 2011)