Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. BARKER, 2:12-mj-00017 DAD. (2012)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20130107d15 Visitors: 12
Filed: Nov. 17, 2012
Latest Update: Nov. 17, 2012
Summary: STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO CONTINUE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND FOR EXCLUSION OF TIME DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Assistant United States Attorney Todd Pickles, counsel for the plaintiff United States of America, and defendant Brenden Barker, by and through his counsel Kenneth Wine, Esq., that good cause exists to extend the preliminary hearing currently set for November 16, at 2:00 p.m. to January 11, 2013, at 2:00 p.m. pursuant to Federal
More

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO CONTINUE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND FOR EXCLUSION OF TIME

DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Assistant United States Attorney Todd Pickles, counsel for the plaintiff United States of America, and defendant Brenden Barker, by and through his counsel Kenneth Wine, Esq., that good cause exists to extend the preliminary hearing currently set for November 16, at 2:00 p.m. to January 11, 2013, at 2:00 p.m. pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1(d).

Good cause exists to extend the time for the preliminary hearing within meaning of Rule 5.1(d) because additional discovery has been provided to the defense and counsel for defendant will need time to review the materials and advise his client with respect to his options with respect to pre-indictment resolution or preparing the matter for trial post-indictment. As a result, the defendant agrees that a continuance of the preliminary hearing date will not prejudice him as it will allow his counsel the opportunity to understand the nature and scope of the evidence in this case in order to prepare an effective defense, as well as to discuss pre-indictment resolution. Defendant is in custody.

Counsel further stipulate that an exclusion of time from November 16, 2012, to January 11, 2013, is appropriate under the Speedy Trial Act because the United States has provided pre-indictment discovery and defense counsel will need time to review that discovery. As a result, counsel for both parties stipulate that the ends of justice are served by the Court excluding such time and outweigh each defendant's interest in a speedy trial, as well as the public's interest in a speedy trial, so that counsel for each defendant may have reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). Therefore, time should be excluded from computation under the Speedy Trial under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) (Local Code T4).

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Based upon the representations by counsel and the stipulation of the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court finds good cause to extend the Preliminary Hearing currently set for November 16, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. to January 11, 2013, at 2:00 p.m., pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1(d); and

2. Based upon the above representations and stipulation of the parties, the Court further finds that the ends of justice outweigh the best interest of the public and each defendant in a speedy trial. Accordingly, time under the Speedy Trial Act shall be excluded through January 11, 2013, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) (Local Code T4).

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