United States v. Irias-Lobo, CR 19-0646 EMC. (2020)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20200115e28
Visitors: 2
Filed: Jan. 13, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 13, 2020
Summary: [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME FROM THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT CALCULATION EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . The parties appeared before the Court on January 8, 2020 for a status hearing. The Court set a further status or change-of-plea hearing for February 12, 2020. Because the government has provided discovery, the parties and the Court agreed that it would be appropriate for time be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act between October 16, 2019 and November 13, 2019, for effective preparatio
Summary: [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME FROM THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT CALCULATION EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . The parties appeared before the Court on January 8, 2020 for a status hearing. The Court set a further status or change-of-plea hearing for February 12, 2020. Because the government has provided discovery, the parties and the Court agreed that it would be appropriate for time be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act between October 16, 2019 and November 13, 2019, for effective preparation..
More
[PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME FROM THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT CALCULATION
EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.
The parties appeared before the Court on January 8, 2020 for a status hearing. The Court set a further status or change-of-plea hearing for February 12, 2020. Because the government has provided discovery, the parties and the Court agreed that it would be appropriate for time be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act between October 16, 2019 and November 13, 2019, for effective preparation by counsel.
Therefore, the Court finds and holds that the time between January 8, 2020, and February 12, 2020, is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act. Failure to grant the requested continuance would deny defense counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The ends of justice served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial and in the prompt disposition of criminal cases. See id. § 3161(h)(7)(A).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
