U.S. v. ALVAREZ-MUNIZ

Case No. 1:17CR00155 LJO-SKO.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MARIO ALVAREZ-MUNIZ, Defendant.

United States District Court, E.D. California.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Mario Alvarez-Muniz, Defendant, represented by Andy Miri , Law Office Of Andy Miri.

USA, Plaintiff, represented by Karen Ann Escobar , United States Attorney.


STIPULATION REGARDING CONTINUANCE AND EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER

LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, Chief District Judge.

STIPULATION

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

1. By previous order, this matter was set for a status conference on August 7, 2017, at 1 p.m.

2. By this stipulation, the parties move to continue the matter to August 14, 2017, at 11:30 a.m., to be heard at the same time as the defendant's appeal of his detention order.

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

a. Counsel for the government has annual leave previously scheduled for August 7 and is unavailable on that date.

b. Counsel for the government shall file its response to the defendant's motion to revoke his detention order on or before July 21, 2017. An optional reply shall be filed on or before July 31, 2017.

c. Counsel for the parties believe that failure to grant the above-requested continuance is necessary to ensure that the defendant is competent.

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 defendant 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 August 7, 2017, to August 14, 2017, inclusive, is deemed excludable, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§§ 3161(h)(1)(D) and (7)(A), for the purpose of resolving the defendant's bail appeal and to ensure the continuity of counsel for the government. The parties further agree that the ends of justice served by excluding time to and through August 17 outweigh the best interest of the public in a speedy trail

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

SO FOUND. GRANTED PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION.

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