Opinion
1:18-cr-00027 DAD-BAM
09-09-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. APRIL MILLS, Defendant.
PHILLIP A. TALBERT Acting United States Attorney HENRY Z. CARBAJAL III DAVID L. GAPPA Assistant United States Attorneys Attorneys for the United States of America
Dated: November 15, 2021
PHILLIP A. TALBERT Acting United States Attorney
HENRY Z. CARBAJAL III DAVID L. GAPPA Assistant United States Attorneys Attorneys for the United States of America
MOTION TO RESET CHANGE OF PLEA HEARING; FINDINGS AND ORDER
HON. DALE A. DROZD JUDGE
The United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, hereby moves as follows:
By previous order, this matter was set for change of plea on September 13, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. The government now moves to continue and reset the matter for change of plea before the Court for November 15, 2021, at 9:00 a.m., and to exclude time between the date of this stipulation and November 15, 2021 under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(1)(G), 3161(h)(7)(A) and 3161(h)(7)(B)(i) and (iv).
The parties conferred and agreed on a new date for the change of plea and the reasons for continuing the change of plea date. However, the government has been unable to reach defense counsel to confirm agreement on a form of stipulation and proposed order. It is the government's understanding that the request to continue the change of plea date and the requested exclusion of time is unopposed. Moreover, the request to change the date of the hearing was first made by defense counsel to the government.
Defense has informed the government that Mills recently had surgery and is still in the process of recovering. The parties are also finalizing plea documents for the Court's consideration. Thus, the government requests that the current change of plea hearing be continued and reset to November 15, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. This date has been cleared with defense counsel.
By previous Court order, time was excluded under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq., through and including September 13, 2021. In an abundance of caution, the government also requests that time be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq., from the date of this stipulation through and including November 15, 2021, to allow defendant to continue to consult with counsel, and to prepare for and attend a change of plea hearing, and to allow for defendant's availability following surgery.
Counsel for the government believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance/time exclusion would deny defense the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 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.
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 the date of this motion to November 15, 2021, inclusive, should be deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(1)(G), 3161(h)(7)(A) and 3161(h)(7)(B)(i) and (iv) because it results from a continuance granted by the Court at the government'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 defendant in a speedy trial.
Nothing in this motion and proposed order should 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.
ORDER
The change of plea hearing for defendant Mills is continued to November 15, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. 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 the date of this stipulation to November 15, 2021, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(1)(G), 3161(h)(7)(A) and 3161(h)(7)(B)(i) and (iv) because it results from a continuance granted by the Court at the government'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 defendant in a speedy trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.