From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. McFarland

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 17, 2012
No. 2:12-cr-00169 MCE (E.D. Cal. Jul. 17, 2012)

Opinion

No. 2:12-cr-00169 MCE

07-17-2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. NARCO MCFARLAND, SR. Defendant

DAVID D. FISCHER (SBN 224900) LAW OFFICES OF DAVID D. FISCHER, APC Attorney for Defendant NARCO MCFARLAND, SR.


DAVID D. FISCHER (SBN 224900)

LAW OFFICES OF DAVID D. FISCHER, APC

Attorney for Defendant

NARCO MCFARLAND, SR.

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR A PRE-

PLEA ADVISORY GUIDELINE SENTENCE

PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT


STIPULATION

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

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on August 9, 2012 at 9:00 a.m.

2. By this stipulation, the parties have conferred and agree that additional time is needed for negotiation between the parties with the hope of resolving the case. Specifically, the parties have agreed that a pre-plea advisory guideline presentence investigation report would aid the parties toward resolving the case and respectfully request that this Court order the Probation Office to produce a pre-plea advisory guideline presentence investigation report in Mr. McFarland's case. The defense has consulted with Probation and has learned that they will need eight (8) weeks to prepare a report. The defendant now moves to continue the status conference scheduled for NARCO MCFARLAND, SR. only until September 20, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. and to exclude time between July 16, 2012, the date of this stipulation, and September 20, 2012 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 1,952 pages of investigative reports and related documents in electronic form and 2 discs containing many hours of recorded telephone calls. All of this discovery has been produced directly to counsel.

b. Counsel for the defendant desires additional time to consult with his 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. Counsel for the defendant also seeks to review a pre-plea advisory guideline presentence investigation report with the defendant.

c. Counsel for the defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny him 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 defendants 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 July 16, 2012, to September 20, 2012, 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 defendants 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.

U.S. ATTORNEY

by: David D. Fischer for

JASON HITT

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Attorney for Plaintiff

____________________________

DAVID D. FISCHER

Attorney for Defendant

NARCO MCFARLAND, JR.

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

United States v. McFarland

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 17, 2012
No. 2:12-cr-00169 MCE (E.D. Cal. Jul. 17, 2012)
Case details for

United States v. McFarland

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. NARCO MCFARLAND, SR. Defendant

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

Date published: Jul 17, 2012

Citations

No. 2:12-cr-00169 MCE (E.D. Cal. Jul. 17, 2012)