Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Howard, CR 16-412 CRB. (2016)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20161220a96 Visitors: 16
Filed: Dec. 19, 2016
Latest Update: Dec. 19, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE, EXCLUDE TIME, AND ORDER CHARLES R. BREYER , District Judge . On December 19, 2016, Sara Rief was appointed to represent Defendant Howard. Defense counsel is currently reviewing the discovery that was previously produced by the government. In light of defense counsel's efforts in reviewing discovery, the parties agree that a continuance of the upcoming status conference would be appropriate. The parties submit this stipulation to continue the upcoming status conferen
More

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE, EXCLUDE TIME, AND ORDER

On December 19, 2016, Sara Rief was appointed to represent Defendant Howard. Defense counsel is currently reviewing the discovery that was previously produced by the government. In light of defense counsel's efforts in reviewing discovery, the parties agree that a continuance of the upcoming status conference would be appropriate. The parties submit this stipulation to continue the upcoming status conference from December 21, 2016, to January 18, 2017. The parties further stipulate that time be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B). In light of defense counsel's recent appointment, excluding time until January 18, 2017, will allow for the effective preparation of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

ORDER

Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the Court hereby continues the upcoming status conference from December 21, 2016, to January 18, 2017. The Court finds that the exclusion of the period from December 21, 2016 to January 18, 2017, from the time limits applicable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161 is warranted; that the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in the prompt disposition of this criminal case; and that the failure to grant the requested exclusion of time would deny counsel for the defendant and for the government the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation and of counsel, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. See 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