Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

USA v. Franco, CR 17-0626 RS. (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20180201a69 Visitors: 19
Filed: Jan. 31, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 31, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING MATTER AND EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT RICHARD SEEBORG , District Judge . STIPULATION The parties appeared before the Honorable Richard Seeborg for a status conference on January 30, 2018. The government has made an initial production of discovery and anticipates making at least one more production pursuant to the Protective Order (ECF 12). Counsel for defendant Franco is reviewing the discovery produced by the government, and nee
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING MATTER AND EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

STIPULATION

The parties appeared before the Honorable Richard Seeborg for a status conference on January 30, 2018. The government has made an initial production of discovery and anticipates making at least one more production pursuant to the Protective Order (ECF 12). Counsel for defendant Franco is reviewing the discovery produced by the government, and needs additional time to assess the case. At the parties' request, the Court set a further status conference for April 17, 2018 at 2:30 p.m. The parties stipulated, and the Court ordered, that time between January 30, 2018 and April 17, 2018, be excluded for effective preparation of counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

The parties further stipulate, and ask the Court to find, that the requested continuance and exclusion of time are in the interests of justice and outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

SO STIPULATED.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

For the reasons stated, this matter is continued until April 17, 2018 at 2:30 p.m. The time between January 30, 2018 and April 17, 2018, is excluded from the running of the speedy trial clock for effective preparation of counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). Failure to grant the continuance would deny the defendants' counsel the reasonable time necessary to prepare, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

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