Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cr-00403/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cr-00403-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Aleksander Randjelovich
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

________________________________________

Stipulation and Order To Continue Status

- 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

Michael J. Aye, SBN 86288

Attorney at Law

117 J Street, Suite 202

Sacramento, CA 95814-2212

Telephone (916) 447-1278

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT 

Aleksander Randjelovich

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 2:13-cr-00403-TLN

)

PLAINTIFF, ) STIPULATION AND ORDER

) COUNTIUING STATUS

v. ) CONFRENCE FROM MAY 8, 2014

) TO JUNE 5, 2014

ALEKSANDER RANDJELOVICH, )

)

)

DEFENDANT. )

____ _________________________) 

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 status on May 

8, 2014. 

2. By this stipulation, the parties now moves to continue 

the status conference until June 5, 2014, at 9:30 a.m, and to 

Case 2:13-cr-00403-TLN Document 21 Filed 05/06/14 Page 1 of 4
________________________________________

Stipulation and Order To Continue Status

- 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

exclude time between May 8, 2014, and June 5, 2014 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 a significant amount of 

computer evidence. This discovery has been provided, or has 

been made available to the defense for review. 

b. Counsel for the defendant is still in the process of 

analyzing the evidence and has requested further 

information concerning the government’s interpretation of 

the evidence. Counsel for defendant believes that failure 

to grant the above-requested continuance would deny him the 

reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking 

into account the exercise of due diligence. 

c. The parties are currently discussing settlement 

possibilities in this case which have not concluded and 

which revolve around additional information concerning the 

heretofore discovered electronic evidence.

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 

Case 2:13-cr-00403-TLN Document 21 Filed 05/06/14 Page 2 of 4
________________________________________

Stipulation and Order To Continue Status

- 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

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., the time period of May 8, 

2014 to June 5, 2014, 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.

Dated: 5/6/2014

____/S/ Michael J. Aye_____________

Michael J. Aye, Attorney for 

Defendant, Aleksander Randjelovich

Date: 5/6/2014

_____/S/ Kyle Reardon______________ 

Kyle Reardon, AUSA, Attorney for

Plaintiff, United States of America

Case 2:13-cr-00403-TLN Document 21 Filed 05/06/14 Page 3 of 4
________________________________________

Stipulation and Order To Continue Status

- 4 -

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 2:13-cr-00403-TLN

)

PLAINTIFF, )

) ORDER COUNTIUING STATUS

v. ) CONFRENCE FROM MAY 8, 2014

) TO JUNE 5, 2014 

ALEKSANDER RANDJELOVICH, )

)

)

DEFENDANT. )

______________________________) 

The parties’ stipulation is approved and so ordered. The 

time beginning May 8, 2014, until June 5, 2014, is excluded from 

the calculation of time under the Speedy Trial Act. For the 

reasons contained in the parties’ stipulation, this exclusion is 

appropriate to ensure effective preparation, taking into account 

the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C.§ 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv); 

Local Code T4. The interests of justice served by granting this

continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the 

defendant in a speedy trial.18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

Dated: May 6, 2014

Case 2:13-cr-00403-TLN Document 21 Filed 05/06/14 Page 4 of 4