Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Cesar Erendira Nava, Defendant, represented by Clemente Jimenez , Law Office Of Clemente M. Jimenez.
Georgina E. Lopez Quintero, Defendant, represented by Dustin D. Johnson , Law Offices of Dustin D. Johnson.
Alfonso Rivera, Jr., Defendant, represented by Michael Jason Lawley , Law Office Of M. Jason Lawley.
Ruth A. Kellner, Defendant, represented by Christopher Richard Cosca , Christopher R. Cosca, Attorney at Law.
Rodney G. Sharp, Defendant, represented by Hannah Rose Labaree , Federal Public Defender's Office.
Gary M. Roberts, Defendant, represented by Etan Zaitsu , Zaitsu Law.
USA, Plaintiff, represented by Ross Kerr Naughton , U.S. Attorney's Office.
STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER
JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on June 13, 2017.
2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until September 12, 2017 at 9:15 a.m., and to exclude time between June 13, 2017, and September 12, 2017 at 9:15 a.m., under Local Code T4.
3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:
a) The government has represented that the discovery associated with this case is extensive. It includes, among other things, hundreds of pages of investigative reports, multiple wiretap applications, audio recordings of thousands of intercepted calls, transcripts, photographs, pole camera video, photographs, and many items of seized real evidence, including alleged narcotics. All of this discovery has been made available for inspection and copying. Much of this discovery has been produced directly to counsel, with more productions forthcoming.
b) Counsel for defendants desire additional time to review the current charges, to review and copy discovery for this matter, to conduct investigation and research related to the charges, to discuss potential resolutions with their clients, and to otherwise prepare for trial.
c) Counsel for defendants believe that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny them the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
d) The government 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 June 13, 2017 to September 12, 2017 at 9:15 a.m., 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.
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.
* * *
FINDINGS AND ORDER
IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED.