Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Pitman

December 9, 2008

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JAMES P. PITMAN, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: James P. Donohue United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING STIPULATED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE INDICTMENT

On December 8, 2008, the parties to the above-captioned matter filed a Joint Motion to Extend Time to File Information or Indictment Under the Speedy Trial Act. Dkt. No. 8. The motion argued that granting a continuance would satisfy the "ends of justice" by providing the parties additional time to review discovery materials, investigate the facts, negotiate a plea and calculate potential restitution obligations. In addition, they argued that failure to grant the extension would deny defendant and the government the right to have a reasonable amount of time to prepare. Id.

Congress, however, "did not intend the 'ends of justice' exclusion to be granted as a matter of course but rather [intended it] to be used sparingly and only when necessary." United States v. Lewis, 980 F.2d 555, 560 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal citations omitted). Hence, an "ends of justice" exclusion may be granted only for a specific duration when "justified [on the record] with reference to the facts as of the time the delay is ordered." United States v. Ramirez-Cortez, 213 F.3d 1149, 1154 (9th Cir. 2000). Generalized assertions that the "ends of justice" will be satisfied by the granting of a continuance are insufficient. Id. at 1154-55.

Here, the parties have provided no evidence sufficient to justify granting a continuance. Instead, they have alluded to the fact that calculation of restitution complicates plea negotiations, and asserted that a continuance would satisfy the ends of justice. These assertions are insufficient to justify a continuance. The parties' motion is therefore DENIED.

DATED this 9th day of December, 2008.

20081209

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.