U.S. v. BUCIO-AYALA, CR 13-574 WHA (2013)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20131203686
Visitors: 5
Filed: Nov. 20, 2013
Latest Update: Nov. 20, 2013
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER EXCLUDING TIME WILLIAM H. ALSUP, District Judge. On November 19, 2013, at 2:00 p.m., defendants Martin Bucio-Ayala, Arnoldo Madrigal Rosales and Jorge Hernandez-Pena appeared before the District Court through counsel. Miguel Montes-Torres failed to appear in person, though his counsel was present. The parties agreed to return before the Court on December 17, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. Prior to the hearing, the government provided additional discovery to defense counsel. The govern
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER EXCLUDING TIME WILLIAM H. ALSUP, District Judge. On November 19, 2013, at 2:00 p.m., defendants Martin Bucio-Ayala, Arnoldo Madrigal Rosales and Jorge Hernandez-Pena appeared before the District Court through counsel. Miguel Montes-Torres failed to appear in person, though his counsel was present. The parties agreed to return before the Court on December 17, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. Prior to the hearing, the government provided additional discovery to defense counsel. The governm..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER EXCLUDING TIME
WILLIAM H. ALSUP, District Judge.
On November 19, 2013, at 2:00 p.m., defendants Martin Bucio-Ayala, Arnoldo Madrigal Rosales and Jorge Hernandez-Pena appeared before the District Court through counsel. Miguel Montes-Torres failed to appear in person, though his counsel was present. The parties agreed to return before the Court on December 17, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. Prior to the hearing, the government provided additional discovery to defense counsel. The government anticipates providing additional discovery to defense counsel prior to December 17, 2013. The parties agree that defense counsel require time to review the discovery and discuss it with their clients. Therefore, the parties agreed that time should be excluded between November 19, 2013 and December 17, 2013 in order to ensure the effective preparation of counsel. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
Respectfully submitted,
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the exclusion of time from November 19, 2013 through and including December 17, 2013 is warranted and that the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). The failure to grant the requested continuance would deny the defendant effective preparation of counsel, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
