Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cr-00359/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cr-00359-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brian Peter Stallings
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

Stipulation & [Proposed] Order 

15-cr-00359-CRB 

 1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

BRIAN J. STRETCH (CABN 163973) 

United States Attorney 

BARBARA J. VALLIERE (DCBN 439353) 

Chief, Criminal Division 

JOSE A. OLIVERA (CABN 279741) 

Assistant United States Attorney 

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055 

San Francisco, California 94102-3495 

Telephone: (415) 436-6888 

Facsimile: (415) 436-7009 

Email: jose.olivera@usdoj.gov 

Attorneys for the United States of America 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BRIAN PETER STALLINGS, 

 Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CR CASE NO. 3:15-CR-00359-CRB 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF 

STATUS CONFERENCE AND 

EXCLUSION OF TIME 

 The United States of America and defendant, Brian Peter Stallings, stipulate that the status 

conference in the above-captioned case scheduled for October 19, 2016, at 2:00 p.m., should be 

continued to November 23, 2016, at 2:00 p.m. The basis for this request is that counsel for the 

government will be conducting jury selection in Oakland, California, in USA v. Hugh Robinson (Case 

No. CR 15-252-JSW). Trial in this case is scheduled to begin on October 24, 2016, and to continue for 

approximately 12 to 14 days. Moreover, the parties continue to review the more than 15,000 pages of 

discovery produced by the United States in this case since Defendant’s initial appearance. 

 The Parties agree that, based on the foregoing, that an exclusion of time from October 19, 2016, 

through November 23, 2016, at 2:00 p.m., from the applicable time limits set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3161 

Case 3:15-cr-00359-CRB Document 49 Filed 10/19/16 Page 1 of 3
Stipulation & [Proposed] Order 

15-cr-00359-CRB 

 2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

would allow counsel for Defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation of counsel 

and continuity of counsel because it would allow additional time to review discovery. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3161(h)(7). The parties further agree that failure to exclude time as set forth above would deny 

Defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation and continuity of counsel and that the 

ends of justice served by granting this request for exclusion of time outweigh the best interest of the 

public and the Defendant in a speedy trial. 

 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the parties jointly request a continuance of the status 

conference from October 19, 2016, to November 23, 2016, at 2:00 p.m., and the exclusion of time for 

this period. 

 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: October 18, 2016 s/ Jose A. Olivera 

 JOSE A. OLIVERA 

 Assistant United States Attorney 

Dated: October 18, 2016 s/ Martin A. Schainbaum

 MARTIN A. SCHAINBAUM 

 Attorney for Defendant 

Case 3:15-cr-00359-CRB Document 49 Filed 10/19/16 Page 2 of 3
Stipulation & [Proposed] Order 

15-cr-00359-CRB 

 3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

For the reasons set forth in the above Stipulation, the Court hereby continues the status 

conference in this case from October 19, 2016, to November 23, 2016, at 2:00 p.m. The Court further 

finds that the exclusion of time from October 19, 2016, to November 23, 2016, at 2:00 p.m., is 

warranted to permit the parties to continue to review discovery. That period shall be excluded in 

accordance with the provisions of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (h)(7)(B)(iv), 

as the ends of justice served by this exclusion outweigh the best interest of the public and Defendant in a 

speedy trial. Failure to grant the requested continuance would deny the Defendant effective preparation 

of counsel, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ______________ ____________________________________________ 

 HONORABLE CHARLES R. BREYER 

 United States District Judge 

10/19/2016

Case 3:15-cr-00359-CRB Document 49 Filed 10/19/16 Page 3 of 3