Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cr-00026/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cr-00026-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alejandro Ortiz-Salas
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

-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

KELLY BABINEAU (CA State Bar #190418)

The Law Office of Kelly Babineau

455 Capitol Mall, Suite 802

Sacramento, CA 95814

Tel:(916) 442-4948

Fax: (916) 492-2909

kbabineau@klblawoffice.net

Attorney for ALEJANDRO ORTIZ-SALAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) No. 15-CR-0026GEB

Plaintiff, ) 

) STIPULATION REGARDING

) EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS

v. ) UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT;

) [PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND 

) ORDER

ALEJANDRO ORTIZ-SALAS, )

) Date: 1-29-16

Defendants. ) Time: 9:00 a.m.

________________________________) Judge: Hon. Garland E. Burrell

STIPULATION

Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and 

defendant by and through his counsels of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on January 22, 2016. 

2. By this stipulation, defendant Alejandro Ortiz-Salas, now moves to 

continue the status conference until January 29, 2016 and to exclude time between 

January 22, 2016 and January 29, 2016 under Local Code T4. Plaintiff does not oppose 

this request.

Case 2:15-cr-00026-GEB-KJN Document 38 Filed 01/22/16 Page 1 of 4
-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

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

following: 

a. The government has provided defense counsel with discovery associated 

with this case, which includes law enforcement reports and audio recordings. 

b. Counsels for the defendant desires additional time to consult with her

client, to review the current charges, to finish the investigation and research related to 

the charges, and to discuss potential resolutions with their clients. Mr. Ortiz-Salas has 

been moved to Colusa County and needs an interpreter. A new offer has been extended, 

and counsel needs time to review the offer with the client with the interpreter. 

c. Based on the foregoing, defense counsel needs additional time, taking into 

account the exercise of due diligence, to consult with their clients, to review the current 

charges, to conduct investigation and research related to the charges, to review 

discovery for this matter, to discuss potential resolutions with their clients, to prepare 

pretrial motions, and to otherwise prepare for trial. Based on the Court’s available 

calendars and the availability of the parties, the parties ask that the Court set this matter 

for a status conference on January 29, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. and that it find excludable time 

from January 22, 2016 through and including the January 29, 2016 status conference. 

Because of the need for additional preparation outlined above, a denial of a continuance 

to January 29, 2016 would deny the parties the reasonable time necessary for effective 

preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence..

d. The government does not object to the continuance.

e. Based on the above-stated findings, the ends of justice served by 

Case 2:15-cr-00026-GEB-KJN Document 38 Filed 01/22/16 Page 2 of 4
-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

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 January 22, 2016

to January 29, 2016, 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 

defendants 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.

Dated: January 21, 2016 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Kelly Babineau

KELLY BABINEAU

Attorney for ALJENADRO ORTIZ-SALAS

Dated: Januayr 21, 2016 /s/ Jason Hitt

JASON HITT

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Case 2:15-cr-00026-GEB-KJN Document 38 Filed 01/22/16 Page 3 of 4
-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

O R D E R

IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2016

Case 2:15-cr-00026-GEB-KJN Document 38 Filed 01/22/16 Page 4 of 4