Opinion
STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; ORDER
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge.
STIPULATION
1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on November 12, 2015.
2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until January 7, 2016, and to exclude time between November 12, 2015, and January 7, 2016, under Local Code T4.
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER, United States Attorney, PAUL A. HEMESATH, Assistant United States Attorney, Sacramento, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America.
THOMAS A. JOHNSON, Counsel for Defendant GURSHARAN PHAGURA.
MICHAEL BARRETTE, Counsel for Defendant HARMINDER PHAGURA.
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 investigative reports and electronically obtained evidence, including hours of surveillance a text message records. This discovery has been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying.
b) Counsel for defendants desire additional time to review the voluminous evidence and consult with their respective clients.
c) Counsel for defendants believe that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny counsel 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 defendant 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 November 12, 2015 to January 7, 2016, 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 defendants' 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.
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.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.