From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Martinez

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
Aug 26, 2011
No. 10-cr-00118-EJG-1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2011)

Opinion

No. 10-cr-00118-EJG-1

08-26-2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ENRIQUE FONSECA MARTINEZ, Defendant.

Respectfully Submitted, By: DEMETRIUS M. COSTY Counsel for Enrique Fonseca Martinez MICHAEL D. ANDERSON Assistant U.S. Attorney


Demetrius M. Costy (Bar No. 202905)

Attorney for Enrique Fonseca Martinez

STIPULATION AND ORDER

CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE

Hon. Edward J. Garcia

STIPULATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE

It is hereby stipulated and agreed to between the United States of America through MICHAEL D. ANDERSON, Assistant United States Attorney, and defendant, ENRIQUE FONSECA MARTINEZ, by and through his respective counsel, that the status conference in the above-captioned matter set for Friday, August 26, 2011 at 10:00 a.m., be continued to Friday, September 30, 2011, at 10:00 a.m.

This request for a continuance is requested because Jamil F. Karwash, the previous attorney for defendant, has left the Law Offices of Robert J. Beles in an unexpected sabbatical leave and Demetrius M. Costy, with the Law Offices of Robert J. Beles, filed a substitution of counsel on August 23, 2011.

The parties further stipulate that the time period from Friday, August 26, 2011, up to and including the new status conference date of Friday, September 30, 2011, should be excluded from computation of the time for commencement of trial under the Speedy Trial Act. The parties stipulate that the ends of justice are served by the Court excluding such time, so that new defense counsel 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). Specifically, defendant agrees that his new counsel needs additional time to continue discussions with the government regarding potential resolution of the case, review produced discovery in the case, effectively evaluate the posture of the case and potentially prepare for trial. See id.

For these reasons, the defendant, defense counsel, and the government 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) (B) (iv); 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h) (7) (B) (ii).

Respectfully Submitted,

By: DEMETRIUS M. COSTY

Counsel for Enrique Fonseca Martinez

MICHAEL D. ANDERSON

Assistant U.S. Attorney

IT IS SO ORDERED.

SENIOR JUDGE EDWARD J. GARCIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

United States v. Martinez

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
Aug 26, 2011
No. 10-cr-00118-EJG-1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2011)
Case details for

United States v. Martinez

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ENRIQUE FONSECA MARTINEZ…

Court:United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

Date published: Aug 26, 2011

Citations

No. 10-cr-00118-EJG-1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2011)