Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. WORRELL, 15-mj-057 DAD. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20150504a91 Visitors: 16
Filed: Apr. 29, 2015
Latest Update: Apr. 29, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE PRELIMINARY HEARING KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . The United States of America, through its counsel, Assistant U. S. Attorney Josh Sigal, and defendant, Eric Worrell, through Assistant Federal Defender, Benjamin D. Galloway, stipulate that the Preliminary Hearing, currently scheduled for May 1, 2015, be continued to May 28, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. The parties agree that good cause exists for continuing the preliminary examination because the parties req
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE PRELIMINARY HEARING

The United States of America, through its counsel, Assistant U. S. Attorney Josh Sigal, and defendant, Eric Worrell, through Assistant Federal Defender, Benjamin D. Galloway, stipulate that the Preliminary Hearing, currently scheduled for May 1, 2015, be continued to May 28, 2015 at 2:00 p.m.

The parties agree that good cause exists for continuing the preliminary examination because the parties require time to consult regarding the charges named in the criminal complaint and to review the investigative reports and other documents associated with this case.

The parties agree that the above reasons constitute 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 May 28, 2015.

The parties stipulate that the ends of justice served by granting the defendants' request for a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants 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).

ORDER

Finding good cause, the Court orders the preliminary hearing continued to May 28, 2015, at 2:00 p.m., before the Hon. Dale A. Drozd; and, time excluded for the reasons set forth above. The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting the defendants' request for a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants 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