Opinion
CASE NO.: 10-CR-00917-SBA-1
10-25-2011
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiffs, v. ARMANDO ORNELAS, Defendant.
GARCIA, SCHNAYERSON & THOMPSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW JESSE GARCIA [061223] Attorney for Defendant ARMANDO ORNELAS JOSEPH AUDAL Authorized to sign for JOSEPH AUDAL Assistant United States Attorney on October 20, 2011
GARCIA, SCHNAYERSON & THOMPSON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
JESSE GARCIA [061223]
Attorney for Defendant
ARMANDO ORNELAS
AMENDED STIPULATION AND ORDER
RE CONTINUANCE OF PLEA AND
SENTENCE HEARING
Armando Ornelas, by and through his counsel, Jesse Garcia, and the United States Government, by and through its counsel, Joseph Patrick Audal, Assistant United States Attorney, jointly stipulate and respectfully request the Court to reset the sentencing hearing presently set for October 26, 2011, be re-scheduled for November 16, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. The reason of this continuance is based on the following:
Defendant is researching the proposed amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines which we believe may affect the sentence to be imposed in this case. The proposed amendment to the Guidelines is effective November 1, 2011, therefore we are proposing a short continuance until after that date.
Further, time in this case should be excluded in accordance with the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) for adequate preparation of defense counsel and continuity of counsel, taking into account due diligence.
Respectfully submitted,
JESSE GARCIA
Attorney for Defendant
ARMANDO ORNELAS
JOSEPH AUDAL
Authorized to sign for JOSEPH AUDAL
Assistant United States Attorney
on October 20, 2011
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the change of plea and sentencing in this case, currently scheduled on October 26, 2011, at 10:00 a.m., be continued to November 16, 2011, at 10:00 a.m.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time from the date of this Order to November 16, 2011, should be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv), for effective preparation of counsel and continuity of counsel. The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy and public trial, and the failure to grant the requested continuance would unreasonably deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation and continuity of counsel, taking into account due diligence.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
HON. SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge