U.S. v. SALINAS-GARCIA

Case No. 2:15-CR-00102-GEB.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. EDUARDO SALINAS-GARCIA, Defendant.

United States District Court, E.D. California.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Ramon Herrera, Defendant, represented by Benjamin David Galloway , Office Of The Federal Public Defender.

Eduardo Salinas-Garcia, Defendant, represented by Christopher Richard Cosca , Christopher R. Cosca, Attorney at Law.

Fernando Acosta, Defendant, represented by Shari Gail Rusk , Shari Rusk Attorney At Law.

Jesus Nunez-Meza, Defendant, represented by John Richard Manning , Law Office of John R. Manning.

USA, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda Beck , U.S. Attorney's Office & Timothy Howard Delgado , United States Attorney's Office.


STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE AND TO EXCLUDE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; [PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER

GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., Senior District Judge.

STIPULATION

1. By previous order, this matter was set for a status conference on July 14, 2017.

2. By this stipulation, the United States and Defendant Eduardo Salinas-Garcia, through their undersigned counsel, now move to continue the status conference until August 25, 2017, and to exclude time between July 14, 2017, and August 25, 2017, under Local Code T4.

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

a) Initially, the government provided 65 pages of discovery as well as three DVDs containing numerous videos. On January 13, 2016 the government provided an additional 2,683 pages of discovery. On February 25, 2016 the government produced another 694 pages of discovery. Finally, on March 23, 2016 the government provided an additional ten DVD's containing hundreds of pages of cell phone records. Counsel for defendant desires additional time to consult with his client, to review the current charges, to conduct investigation and research related to the charges, to review and copy discovery for this matter, to discuss potential resolution with his client, and to otherwise prepare for trial. b) Counsel for defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny counsel the 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 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 July 14, 2017 to August 25, 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 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.

ORDER

IT IS SO FOUND AND 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