From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Salmeron

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 30, 2012
Case No.: 2:10-CR-0507-WBS (E.D. Cal. Jul. 30, 2012)

Opinion

Case No.: 2:10-CR-0507-WBS

07-30-2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ALVINO SALMERON, IVAN LEYVA Defendants.

THOMAS A. JOHNSON Attorney for Defendant ALVINO SALMERON JEFFREY L. STANIELS Attorney for Defendant IVAN LEYVA BENJAMIN WAGNER United States Attorney DANIEL S. MCCONKIE, JR. Assistant U.S. Attorney


THOMAS A. JOHNSON, #119203
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1620
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: (916) 422-4022
Attorney for Defendant Salmeron, Alvino

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO

CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE

Plaintiff, United States of America, by and through the counsel of record, and Defendant, Alvino Salmeron, and Jeffrey L. Staniels, attorney for Ivan Leyva by and through his counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on July 30, 2012.

2. By this stipulation, Defendants now moves to continue the status conference until September 24, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. and to exclude time between July 30, 2012 and September 24, 2012 under Local Code T4. Plaintiff does not oppose this request.

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

a. The government has represented that the discovery associated with this case has been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying.
b. Counsel for Defendant, Alvino Salmeron, desires additional time in order to continue review of the discovery, to conduct research related to the charges, and to explore a potential resolution.
c. Counsel for defendants believe that failure to grant the above-requested continuance 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 July 19, 2012 to September 13, 2012, 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 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 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 from the period within which a trial must commence.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

By: ________________

THOMAS A. JOHNSON

Attorney for Defendant

ALVINO SALMERON

By: ________________

JEFFREY L. STANIELS

Attorney for Defendant

IVAN LEYVA

BENJAMIN WAGNER

United States Attorney

By: ________________

DANIEL S. MCCONKIE, JR.

Assistant U.S. Attorney

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________

WILLIAM B. SHUBB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

United States v. Salmeron

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 30, 2012
Case No.: 2:10-CR-0507-WBS (E.D. Cal. Jul. 30, 2012)
Case details for

United States v. Salmeron

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ALVINO SALMERON, IVAN LEYVA…

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

Date published: Jul 30, 2012

Citations

Case No.: 2:10-CR-0507-WBS (E.D. Cal. Jul. 30, 2012)