United States v. Patel

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JAI HITEN PATEL, Defendant.

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

Date published: Aug 5, 2011

CR S-2:10-0298 WBS (E.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2011)

Opinion

CR S-2:10-0298 WBS

08-05-2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JAI HITEN PATEL, Defendant.

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney MICHAEL M. BECKWITH Assistant U.S. Attorney Attorney for Plaintiff JESSE GARCIA Attorney for Defendant JAI HITEN PATEL

WILLIAM B. SHUBB

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

MICHAEL M. BECKWITH

Assistant U.S. Attorney

STIPULATION AND ORDER RESETTING STATUS CONFERENCE,

AND EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

The United States of America, through its counsels of record, Benjamin B. Wagner, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California, and Michael M. Beckwith, Assistant United States Attorney, and defendant Jai Hiten Patel, through his counsel of record, Jesse Garcia, Esq., hereby stipulate and agree that the status conference set for August 8, 2011, be continued to October 24, 2011, at 8:30 a.m.

The parties need additional time for preparation. Therefore, the parties have agreed and respectfully request that the Court set the date of October 24, 2011 at 8:30 a.m., for the status conference.

Accordingly, the parties stipulate that time be excluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii) and (iv) and Local Code T4, to give the defendant time to further review the discovery and to adequately prepare

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

MICHAEL M. BECKWITH

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Attorney for Plaintiff

JESSE GARCIA

Attorney for Defendant

JAI HITEN PATEL

ORDER

UPON GOOD CAUSE SHOWN and by stipulation of all parties, it is hereby ordered that the status conference set for August 8, 2011, at 8:30 a.m., be continued to October 24, at 8:30 a.m., and that the time beginning August 8, 2011, extending through and including October 24, 2011, be excluded from the calculation of time under the Speedy Trial Act. The Court finds 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)(A).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

WILLIAM B. SHUBB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE