Opinion
2:19-CR-00107 KJM
12-27-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. YANDELL et al. Defendants.
TONI H. WHITE (SBN 210119) ATTORNEY AT LAW Attorney for Defendant JEANNA QUESENBERRY
TONI H. WHITE (SBN 210119) ATTORNEY AT LAW Attorney for Defendant JEANNA QUESENBERRY
FIRST AMENDED STIPULATION REGARDING CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE; ORDER
The original version of this stipulation and proposed order inadvertently left off the signature of counsel for defendant Jeanna Quesenberry. This first amended stipulation and proposed order corrects that error.
The defendant, Jeanna Quesenberry, by and through her counsel, Toni White, defendant Kristen Demar, by and through her counsel, Candice Fields, defendant Travis Burhop, by and through his counsel Tim Pori, defendant by Kevin MacNamara, by and through his counsel, Shari Rusk, defendant Donald Mazza, by and through his counsel, Tasha Chalfant and the Government, by and through its counsel, Jason Hitt, hereby stipulate as follows:
1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on January 5, 2022 and remains as set.
2. Defendants not listed above are intent on appearing in Court for the status hearing on January 5, 2022.
3. The defendants listed herein request to move the hearing, as to them, to March 2, 2022. It is my understanding that March 2, 2022 will be the date requested by the group of defendants that will be appearing on January 5, 2022.
4. Furthermore, the defendants herein are aware that the Court may set a trial date for early 2023 at the January 5, 2022 status conference. Each defendant and counsel defer to the 2023 trial dates requested by the defendants appearing in court and ordered by the Court.
5. By this stipulation, the defendants herein now move for an order excusing their appearance at the status conference of January 5, 2022, an order setting the next status hearing for March 2, 2022 and an order excluding time between January 5, 2022, and March 2, 2022, under Local Code T4.
6. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:
(a) Discover is voluminous in this matter and currently consists of 96, 542 PDF documents, 394 hours of audio, 136 hours of video, 6178 location data coordinates, data from wiretap interceptions from 3 target telephones and forensic reports for eight mobile devices. Counsel for defendants desire this time to continue to review discovery, to continue to consult with their clients, review the current charges, conduct investigation and research related to the charges and to discuss potential resolutions with their clients and otherwise prepare for trial.
(b) Defense counsels believe that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny them reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
(c) The government does not object to the continuance.
(d) 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 defendants in a trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act.
(e) 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 January 5, 2022 to
March 2, 2022, 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 defendants' 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. 7. Nothing in this stipulation and order shall preclude a finding that other provisions of he Speedy Trial Act dictate that additional time periods are excludable from the period within which a trial must commence.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
ORDER
IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED.