U.S. v. COOK

No. 2:12-CR-169-MCE-11.

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Beshiba Cook, Defendant.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Beshiba Cook, Defendant, represented by Dustin D. Johnson , Law Offices of Dustin D. Johnson.

USA, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Hitt , United States Attorney's Office.


MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., District Judge.


1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on August 10, 2017.

2. By this stipulation, defendant Beshiba Cook, by and through her undersigned counsel, now moves to continue the status conference until September 7, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., and to exclude time between August 10, 2017 and September 7, 2017, 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 includes approximately 2590 pages of investigative reports and related documents and recordings of thousands of wiretap calls. All of this discovery has been produced directly to counsel. b) Counsel for defendant desires additional time to consult with his client, conduct investigation and research, review discovery, and to discuss potential resolution with his client. Counsel for the defendant and counsel for the government have been continuing to engage in negotiations toward possible resolution. c) 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. d) The United States 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 August 10, 2017 and September 7, 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 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.





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