From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Olazabal

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
May 13, 2015
2:13-CR-00325-GEB (E.D. Cal. May. 13, 2015)

Opinion

          KYLE R. KNAPP, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Sacramento, CA, Attorney for Defendant, MIGUEL FELIX LOPEZ.

          BENJAMIN B. WAGNER, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, SAMUEL WONG, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Attorney for Plaintiff.

          ADAM M. KOPPEKIN, Attorney for Defendant, Carlos Alfredo Olazabal.


          STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING CASE AND EXCLUDING TIME

          GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., District Judge.

         IT IS HEREBY stipulated between the United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Samuel Wong, Assistant United States Attorney, attorney for plaintiff, together with Adam Koppekin, attorney for defendant Carlos Olazabal and Kyle Knapp, attorney for defendant Miguel Felix-Lopez that the previously-scheduled status conference, currently set for May 15, 2015, be vacated and that the matter be set for status conference on June 5, 2015 at 9:00 a.m.

         Counsel have conferred and this continuance is requested to allow defense counsel additional time to finalize review of the plea agreement, meet with our clients regarding the details and finally have it translated into Spanish should it be acceptable.

         IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED that the ends of justice served by the granting of such a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial and that time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act shall therefore be excluded under 18 U.S.C. Section 3161(h)(7) (A) and (B) (iv), corresponding to Local Code T-4 (to allow defense counsel reasonable time to prepare) from the date of the parties' stipulation, May 12, 2015 up to and including June 5, 2015.

         IT IS SO STIPULATED.

         [PROPOSED] ORDER

         The Stipulation of the parties in its entirety is hereby accepted and adopted as the Court's Order. The requested continuance is GRANTED. This matter shall be dropped from this court's May 15, 2015 criminal calendar and re-calendared for status conference on June 5, 2015, 2015.

         Based on the representations of the parties the court finds that: (1) the failure to grant such a continuance in this case would deny counsel for defendants the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence; and (2) the ends of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. The Court orders that the time period from the filing of the parties' stipulation on May 12, 2015, through and including the June 5, 2015, status conference shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 3161(h)(7) (A) and (B) (iv), corresponding to Local Code T-4 (to allow defense counsel reasonable time to prepare).

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Olazabal

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
May 13, 2015
2:13-CR-00325-GEB (E.D. Cal. May. 13, 2015)
Case details for

United States v. Olazabal

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CARLOS ALFREDO OLAZABAL, MIGUEL…

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

Date published: May 13, 2015

Citations

2:13-CR-00325-GEB (E.D. Cal. May. 13, 2015)