From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Pineda

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Dec 3, 2021
1:19-CR-00195-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2021)

Opinion

1:19-CR-00195-DAD-BAM

12-03-2021

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Plaintiff, v. ROMAL PINEDA Defendant.

ANTHONY P. CAPOZZI Attorney for Defendant, ROMAL PINEDA KEVIN P ROONEY, Attorney for ELVIS ZELAYA MELANIE L. ALSWORTH Assistant United States Attorney MARK J. MCKEON Assistant United States Attorney


Date; February 9, 2022

Time: 1:00 p.m.

ANTHONY P. CAPOZZI Attorney for Defendant, ROMAL PINEDA

KEVIN P ROONEY, Attorney for ELVIS ZELAYA

MELANIE L. ALSWORTH Assistant United States Attorney

MARK J. MCKEON Assistant United States Attorney

STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER

BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

STIPULATION

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on December 8, 2021.

2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until February 9, 2022, and to exclude time between December 8, 2021, and February 9, 2022, under Local Code T4.

3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:

a) Mr. Capozzi, counsel for defendant Pineda, is currently in a jury trial in Tulare County until December 17, 2021 and requests a continuance of the status conference to allow additional time to consult with his client, complete his investigation, and otherwise prepare for trial.
b) Counsel for defendant Zelaya desires additional time to complete a review of the discovery, consult with his client, conduct further investigation and research, to prepare pretrial motions.
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 serviced 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 December 8, 2021 to February 9, 2022, 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 form the period within which a trial must commence.

IT IS SO STIPULATE.

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED that the status conference is continued from December 8, 2021, to February 9, 2022, at 1:00 p.m. before Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. Time is excluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(7)(A), B(iv). If the parties do not resolve the case in advance of the next status conference, they shall be prepared to set a trial date at the status conference hearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Pineda

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Dec 3, 2021
1:19-CR-00195-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2021)
Case details for

United States v. Pineda

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Plaintiff, v. ROMAL PINEDA Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Dec 3, 2021

Citations

1:19-CR-00195-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2021)