From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Stuart

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Dec 16, 2013
CR. S-12-0076 TLN (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2013)

Opinion

          J. TONY SERRA #32639, San Francisco CA, Attorney for Defendant, ETHAN STUART.


          STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDING TIME

          TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.

         Defendants SEAN FARRELL and ETHAN STUART, by and through their attorneys, and plaintiff United States of America, by and through its attorney, hereby stipulate and agree that the status conference of December 19, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., should be continued to April 10, 2014, at 9:30 a.m.

         The parties are continuing to negotiate a settlement, and require more time.

         The parties agree to exclude time, based on the pendency of the motions, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) & (B)(i) & (iv) and Local Code T4, and the continuity of counsel, such that the ends of justice served by granting such a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial because the failure to grant such a continuance would unreasonably deny the defendant continuity of counsel.

         Accordingly, the parties stipulate and agree that time should be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv) and Local Code T4. The parties stipulate that the ends of justice are served by the Court excluding such time, so that counsel for each defendant may have reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence and continuity of counsel. The parties further stipulate and agree that time for trial under the Speedy Trial Act be excluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D) & (h)(7)(A) & (B)(iv), Local Codes E and T-4.

          ORDER

         1. The status conference in this matter now set for December 19, 2013, is continued to April 10, 2014, at 9:30 a.m.; and

         2. Based upon the representations and stipulation of the parties, the Court finds that the time exclusion under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv) applies and the ends of justice outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. The parties further stipulate and agree that time for trial under the Speedy Trial Act be excluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D) & (h)(7)(A) & (B)(iv), Local Codes E and T-4. Accordingly, time under the Speedy Trial Act shall be excluded from December 19, 2013 up to and including April 10, 2014.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Stuart

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Dec 16, 2013
CR. S-12-0076 TLN (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Stuart

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. SEAN FARRELL and ETHAN STUART…

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

Date published: Dec 16, 2013

Citations

CR. S-12-0076 TLN (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2013)