Opinion
No. 2:10-cr-00089-MCE
08-24-2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JAMES STEWART RICHARDS, Defendant.
DANIEL J. BRODERICK, Bar #89424 Federal Defender MICHAEL PETRIK, Jr., Bar #177913 Assistant Federal Defender Attorneys for Defendant JAMES STEWART RICHARDS
DANIEL J. BRODERICK, Bar #89424
Federal Defender
MICHAEL PETRIK, Jr., Bar #177913
Assistant Federal Defender
Attorneys for Defendant
JAMES STEWART RICHARDS
STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE TO SEPTEMBER 29, 2011 AND EXCLUDING TIME
Judge: Hon. Morrison C. England
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties, through counsel, Samantha S. Spangler, Assistant United States Attorney, and Michael Petrik, Jr., attorney for James Stewart Richards, that the Court should vacate the Status Conference scheduled for August 25, 2011, at 9:00 a.m., and reset it for September 29, 2011, at 9:00 a.m.
Counsel for defendant requires further time to review discovery and to consult with Mr. Richards.
It is further stipulated by the parties that the Court should exclude the period from the date of this order through September 29, 2011, when it computes the time within which the trial of the above criminal prosecution must commence for purposes of the Speedy Trial Act. The parties stipulate that the ends of justice served by granting Mr. Richards' request for a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and Mr. Richards in a speedy trial, and that this is an appropriate exclusion of time for defense preparation within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) (Local Code T4).
Respectfully submitted,
DANIEL BRODERICK
Federal Defender
M. Petrik
MICHAEL PETRIK, Jr.
Assistant Federal Defender
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney
M. Petrik for
SAMANTHA S. SPANGLER
Assistant U.S. Attorney
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED. The Court orders time excluded from the date of this order through the Status Conference on September 29, 2011, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7) (Local Code T4). The Court also finds that the ends of justice served by granting defendant's request for a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and defendant in a speedy trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE