From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Smith

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Mar 12, 2015
2:15-CR-00045-KJM (E.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2015)

Opinion

          STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; [PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER

          CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.

         STIPULATION

         Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through defendant's counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

         1. By previous order, this matter was set for Status of Counsel Hearing and Bail Review on March 16, 2015.

         2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the Status of Counsel Hearing and Bail Review until March 20, 2015, and to exclude time between March 16, 2015, and March 20, 2015, under Local Code T4.

          BENJAMIN B. WAGNER, United States Attorney, JUSTIN L. LEE, Assistant United States Attorney, Sacramento, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America.

          LINDA PARISI, Counsel for Defendant DAVID ALLEN SMITH.

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


a) The United States provided discovery to defense counsel in this matter on March 6, 2015, including a 106 pages of paper documents and several audio recordings and photographs.

b) Counsel for the defendant needs additional time to determine the status of representation for the defendant. Additionally, counsel for defendant desires additional time to consult with her client, review the produced discovery, investigate the charges in this case, research and review issues related to the defendant's criminal history, and otherwise prepare for trial.

c) Counsel for defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny her the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

d) The United States 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 March 16, 2015 to March 20, 2015, 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.

         [PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER

         IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Smith

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Mar 12, 2015
2:15-CR-00045-KJM (E.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2015)
Case details for

United States v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DAVID ALLEN SMITH, Defendant.

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

Date published: Mar 12, 2015

Citations

2:15-CR-00045-KJM (E.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2015)