Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Derence, CR 18-00430-RS. (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20181127869 Visitors: 4
Filed: Nov. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 26, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE RICHARD SEEBORG , District Judge . The above-captioned matter is currently set for an initial status conference on December 4, 2018. Mr. Derence is presently participating in residential dual diagnosis treatment in Southern California. His treatment provider has very strict rules and has advocated strongly to have Mr. Derence remain in the program, without travel for court, until he completes the program in mid-January. Moreover, counsel fo
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE

The above-captioned matter is currently set for an initial status conference on December 4, 2018. Mr. Derence is presently participating in residential dual diagnosis treatment in Southern California. His treatment provider has very strict rules and has advocated strongly to have Mr. Derence remain in the program, without travel for court, until he completes the program in mid-January. Moreover, counsel for Mr. Derence is still completing necessary investigation and settlement negotiations are ongoing. The parties, therefore, jointly request that the matter be continued to January 22, 2019, at 2:30 p.m. for status conference.

The parties stipulate there is good cause — taking into account the public interest in the prompt disposition of this case — to exclude the time from December 4, 2018 to January 22, 2019 from computation under the Speedy Trial Act, and that failing to exclude that time would unreasonably deny the defendant and his counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation of counsel taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv). The parties further agree that the ends of justice would be served by excluding the time from December 4, 2018 to January 22, 2019 from computation under the Speedy Trial Act and that the need for the exclusion outweighs the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

SO STIPULATED.

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