U.S. v. WILHELM

Case No. 2:17-CR-00001 MCE.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL WILHELM, Defendant.

United States District Court, E.D. California.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Michael Wilhelm, Defendant, represented by Michael E. Hansen , Law Offices of Michael E. Hansen.

USA, Plaintiff, represented by Owen Roth , U.S. Attorney's Office.


STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; ORDER

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., District 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 a status conference on February 9, 2017. By stipulation of the parties, the Court previously continued the status conference to March 23, 2017, and then again to May 18, 2017.

2. By this stipulation, the parties now move to continue the status conference until July 13, 2017, and to exclude time between May 18, 2017, and July 13, 2017, under Local Code T4.

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

a) The Government represents that the discovery associated with this case presently comprises approximately one hundred and twenty-four pages of discovery and a video recording that lasts approximately ninety minutes. This discovery has been produced directly to Defendant's counsel. b) Counsel for Defendant continues to desire additional time to continue reviewing the discovery for this matter, as well as to conduct additional investigation and research concerning the charges and to consult with Defendant about the foregoing and potential methods of resolution. The parties also note that they now anticipate negotiating a proposed resolution. c) Counsel for Defendant submits that failure to grant the requested continuance would deny him reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Government does not dispute this submission. d) The parties also note for the Court that Defendant has completed in-patient, court-ordered drug treatment. Defendant is under supervision of the Pretrial Services Office and is continuing to participate in treatment. 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 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 May 18, 2017 to July 13, 2017, 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 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.

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases