From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Robertson

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Dec 16, 2013
2:13-CR-0311 JAM (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2013)

Opinion

          STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXCLUDE TIME AND CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE

          JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.

         STIPULATION

         Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendants, by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

         1. By previous order, the court set this matter for a status conference on December 17, 2013.

         2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to vacate this date and reset the status conference for February 18, 2014 at 9:45 a.m.

         3. The parties further stipulate to exclude time between December 17, 2013 and February 18, 2014 under Local Codes T2 and T4. Plaintiff does not oppose this request.

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

         a. Discovery in this case is voluminous. To date, the government has produced 2, 712 pages of bates stamped discovery. Additional discovery is expected, including materials seized pursuant to a search warrant.

          KRESTA DALY, Counsel for Defendant Robert Robertson.

          CHRIS COSCA, (SBN 144546), LAW OFFICES OF CHRIS COSCA, Sacramento, CA, Attorney for Defendant, ESTHER LYNNE ROBERTSON.

          b. Counsel for defendants desire additional time to review and copy discovery, to conduct additional investigation, to conduct necessary legal research, and to prepare for trial.

          c. Counsel for defendants believe that failure to grant this request would deny them 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 December 17, 2013 to February 18, 2014, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and B(ii) and (iv), corresponding to Local Codes T2 and T4, because it results from a continuance granted by the Court at defendant's 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 defendants in a speedy trial.

         5. 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.

         6. All attorneys have authorized Chris Cosca to sign their names to this stipulation.

         IT IS SO STIPULATED.

          ORDER

         IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Robertson

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Dec 16, 2013
2:13-CR-0311 JAM (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Robertson

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT ELDON ROBERTSON, and ESTHER…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Dec 16, 2013

Citations

2:13-CR-0311 JAM (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2013)