Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. ELLIOT, CR 12-0061 EMC. (2014)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20140204769 Visitors: 15
Filed: Feb. 03, 2014
Latest Update: Feb. 03, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PRO POS ED] ORDER CHANGING HEARING DATE EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge. The Court has set Feb. 5, 2014, at 2:30 p.m. as the date for a status conference or change of plea. To give defendants time to consider plea offers, the parties respectfully request that the Court change the hearing date to March 5, 2014, when the other co-defendants. The parties also request the parties also request that the Court exclude the period from the date of this Order through March 5, 2014,
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CHANGING HEARING DATE

EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.

The Court has set Feb. 5, 2014, at 2:30 p.m. as the date for a status conference or change of plea. To give defendants time to consider plea offers, the parties respectfully request that the Court change the hearing date to March 5, 2014, when the other co-defendants.

The parties also request the parties also request that the Court exclude the period from the date of this Order through March 5, 2014, from the time limits of 18 U.S.C. § 3161 for the purposes of effective preparation of counsel and continuity of counsel. The parties agree that the ends of justice served by granting such an exclusion of time outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

SO STIPULATED:

Attestation of Filer

In addition to myself, the other signatorie to this document are Alan Dressler, Anthony Tamburello, and Erik Babcock. I attest that I have their permission to enter conformed signatures on their behalf and to file the document.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

For the reasons stated above, the Court changes the status hearing or change of plea from Feb. 5, 2014 to March 5, 2014. The Court also excludes the period from the date of this Order through March 5, 2014 from the time limits of 18 U.S.C. § 3161 for the purposes of effective preparation of counsel and continuity of counsel. The ends of justice served by granting such an exclusion of time outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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