From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Salyer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION
Jan 9, 2012
Case No. 2:10-CR-0061-LKK (GGH) (E.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2012)

Opinion

Case No. 2:10-CR-0061-LKK (GGH)

01-09-2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. FREDERICK SCOTT SALYER, Defendant.

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP JOHN W. KEKER - #49092 ELLIOT R. PETERS - #158708 BRIAN L. FERRALL - #160847 SEGAL & KIRBY LLP MALCOLM S. SEGAL - #075481 Attorneys for Defendant FREDERICK SCOTT SALYER


KEKER & VAN NEST LLP

JOHN W. KEKER - #49092

ELLIOT R. PETERS - #158708

BRIAN L. FERRALL - #160847

SEGAL & KIRBY LLP

MALCOLM S. SEGAL - #075481

Attorneys for Defendant

FREDERICK SCOTT SALYER

ORDER EXCLUDING TIME


Judge: Hon. Lawrence K. Karlton

On December 21, 2011, the Court found the time between December 21, 2011 and September 11, 2012 should be excluded from the calculation of time under the Speedy Trial Act with respect to Counts 8-12 of the government's second superseding indictment, served on August 17, 2011 [Dkt. 365]. Counts 8-12 concern alleged violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Counsel for the government and defendant consented to the exclusion of time.

The exclusion of time is appropriate for two reasons. First, Counts 8-12 have been severed from Counts 1-7 of the second superseding indictment. Trial on Counts 1-7 will commence on April 17, 2012 and is expected to last multiple weeks. Consequently, exclusion of time is appropriate under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(B). Second, the ends of justice are also served by the Court excluding the above-mentioned time. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B). Failure to continue the trial to September 11, 2012 would unreasonably deny the Defendant continuity of counsel, whose schedule was considered when the Court set the trial date for September 11, 2012. 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). Additionally, given the complexity of Counts 8-12, failure to continue the trial to September 11, 2012 would deny the parties of adequate time to prepare for pretrial proceedings or the trial itself within the time limits established by the Speedy Trial Act. 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(ii). Therefore, the interests of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(A).

SO ORDERED.

_____________

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


Summaries of

United States v. Salyer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION
Jan 9, 2012
Case No. 2:10-CR-0061-LKK (GGH) (E.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2012)
Case details for

United States v. Salyer

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. FREDERICK SCOTT SALYER, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION

Date published: Jan 9, 2012

Citations

Case No. 2:10-CR-0061-LKK (GGH) (E.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2012)