From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Quesnel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 6, 2011
1:08-cr-00413 AWI (E.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2011)

Opinion

1:08-cr-00413 AWI

10-06-2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JASON QUESNEL, Defendant.

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney BRIAN W. ENOS Assistant U.S. Attorney ERIC H. SCHWEITZER Attorney for Defendant


BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney
BRIAN W. ENOS
Assistant United States Attorney United States Courthouse
Attorneys for Plaintiff

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING

ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS

STATEMENTS; ORDER

Time: 1:30 p.m.

Ctrm: 2

Hon. Anthony W. Ishii

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto, through their respective attorneys of record, that the continued hearing regarding defendant's motion to suppress statements may be continued from 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 11, 2011, to 1:30 p.m. on Monday, October 24, 2011.

The parties base this stipulation on good cause, in that Homeland Security Investigations Special Agent Craig Finley, the case agent whom defense counsel is in the midst of cross-examining with respect to defendant's suppression motion, must be in San Francisco on October 11, 2011 with his family attending a meeting with medical personnel relating to his father-in law's need to be placed on an organ donor list. The undersigned government counsel understands that family support is a criterion considered when determining whether and where the recipient is placed on the list. For reasons already stated on the court record, Agent Finley (the lead investigator on this case who was present at defendant's home the day of the search) qualifies as an "essential witness" regarding defendant's suppression motion, and his absence on October 11, 2011 qualifies this case for a time exclusion through the proposed continuance date pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(3)(A). For the above-stated reason, the stipulated continuance will also conserve time and resources for both parties and the court, and the interests of justice served by granting the continuance outweigh defendant's and the public's speedy trial rights pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii).

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

BRIAN W. ENOS

Assistant U.S. Attorney

ERIC H. SCHWEITZER

Attorney for Defendant

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

United States v. Quesnel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 6, 2011
1:08-cr-00413 AWI (E.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2011)
Case details for

United States v. Quesnel

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JASON QUESNEL, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Oct 6, 2011

Citations

1:08-cr-00413 AWI (E.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2011)