Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Ibarra, 15-mj-080 EFB. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20150805649 Visitors: 9
Filed: Aug. 04, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 04, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE PRELIMINARY HEARING DALE A. DROZD , Magistrate Judge . The United States of America, through its counsel, Assistant U. S. Attorney Amanda Beck, and defendant, Juana Carina Ibarra, through Assistant Federal Defender, Matthew C. Bockmon, stipulate that the Preliminary Hearing, currently scheduled for August 6, 2015, be continued to October 8, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. The continuance is necessary for defense preparation in conferring with the defendant. The parties
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE PRELIMINARY HEARING

The United States of America, through its counsel, Assistant U. S. Attorney Amanda Beck, and defendant, Juana Carina Ibarra, through Assistant Federal Defender, Matthew C. Bockmon, stipulate that the Preliminary Hearing, currently scheduled for August 6, 2015, be continued to October 8, 2015 at 2:00 p.m.

The continuance is necessary for defense preparation in conferring with the defendant.

The parties agree that the above reason constitutes good cause to extend the time for preliminary hearing under Fed. R. Crim. P. 5.1, and that the Court should extend the time within which the government must file an indictment to October 8, 2015.

The parties stipulate that the ends of justice served by granting the defendant's request for a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, and that this is an appropriate exclusion of time for defense preparation within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7) (Local Code T4).

DATED: August 4, 2015 BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney /s/ Amanda Beck AMANDA BECK Assistant U.S. Attorney

ORDER

Finding good cause, the Court orders the preliminary hearing continued to October 8, 2015, at 2:00 p.m., before the Hon. Kendall J. Newman; and, time excluded for the reasons set forth above. The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting the defendant's request for a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer