From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Ray

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 14, 2011
Case No. 2:11-cr-00216-MCE (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 2:11-cr-00216-MCE

10-14-2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DESHAWN RAY Defendant.

MATTHEW G. MORRIS Assistant United States Attorney Julius Engel, (as authorized 10/6/11) JULIUS ENGEL Attorney for DESHAWN RAY


BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

MATTHEW G. MORRIS

Assistant U.S. Attorney

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE TO

NOVEMBER 17, 2011, AND EXCLUDING TIME FOR PURPOSES OF

THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

Plaintiff United States of America, by and through Assistant United States Attorney Matthew Morris and Defendant, Deshawn Ray, by and through his attorney, Julius Engel, hereby stipulate as follows:

The parties agree that the case be continued to November 17, 2011. The parties request the continuance based upon the following facts, which the parties believe demonstrate good cause to support the appropriate finding under the Speedy Trial Act:

a) The parties are attempting to determine the bounds of a possible resolution to the case without trial. The government has provided discovery to the defense, and the parties are in discussions about whether a debrief session would help resolve the case. b) The requested continuance is not based on congestion of the Court's calendar, lack of diligent preparation on the part of the attorney for the government or the defense, or failure on the part of the attorney for the government to obtain available witnesses.

For purposes of computing the date under the Speedy Trial Act by which defendant's trial must commence, the parties agree that the time period of October 13, 2011 to November 17, 2011, inclusive, should be excluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv) and local code T4 because the delay results from a continuance granted by the Court at the defendant's request, with the agreement of the government, on the basis of the Court's finding that: (i) the delay will allow defense counsel reasonable time to prepare; and (ii) the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and defendant in a speedy trial. See Bloate v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 1345, 1357-58 (2011).

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

MATTHEW G. MORRIS

Assistant United States Attorney

Julius Engel, (as authorized 10/6/11)

JULIUS ENGEL

Attorney for DESHAWN RAY

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

United States v. Ray

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 14, 2011
Case No. 2:11-cr-00216-MCE (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2011)
Case details for

United States v. Ray

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DESHAWN RAY Defendant.

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

Date published: Oct 14, 2011

Citations

Case No. 2:11-cr-00216-MCE (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2011)