Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Tomczykowska, CR 18-0046 JST. (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20180522700 Visitors: 18
Filed: May 21, 2018
Latest Update: May 21, 2018
Summary: [PROPOSED] ORDER DEFENDANT. JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . Based on the assertions and agreement of the parties as set forth in the parties' filed Stipulation dated May 14, 2018, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the above-captioned matter is continued to July 6, 2018, at 9:30 a.m., before the Honorable Jon S. Tigar, for further status. The Court further finds that failing to exclude the time between the date of this filing and June 15, 2018, would unreasonably deny defense counsel the reasona
More

[PROPOSED] ORDER DEFENDANT.

Based on the assertions and agreement of the parties as set forth in the parties' filed Stipulation dated May 14, 2018, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the above-captioned matter is continued to July 6, 2018, at 9:30 a.m., before the Honorable Jon S. Tigar, for further status.

The Court further finds that failing to exclude the time between the date of this filing and June 15, 2018, would unreasonably deny defense counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence and continuity of defense counsel. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The Court further finds that the ends of justice served by excluding the time between now and July 6, 2018, from computation under the Speedy Trial Act outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Accordingly, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time between today's date and the July 6, 2018 appearance shall be excluded from computation under the Speedy Trial Act. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

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