STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE CURRENTLY SET FOR JANUARY 26, 2018 TO FEBRUARY 9, 2018

JON S. TIGAR, District Judge.

The parties, by and through their respective counsel, hereby agree as follows:

1. This case is set for a status conference on January 26, 2018.

2. The parties agree and hereby stipulate that the January 26, 2018 status conference should be reset to February 9, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. for all defendants. This status conference date was originally set the assigned attorney for the government was AUSA Michelle Bazu. Ms. Bazu is no longer employed by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California and the matter was just reassigned to AUSA Robert Rees. Additionally, counsel for both defendants have conflicting court appearances, including a trial calling in state court.

3. The defendants and the government all consent to the continuance of the status conference, and the parties represent that good cause exists to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act for this extension based on the defendants' need for the effective preparation of counsel, taking into account the exercise of due diligence under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). For that reason, the parties request that the Court exclude from the time limits of 18 U.S.C. § 3161 the period from the date of this order through February 9, 2018 from the time period in which the defendants must be brought to trial. The parties also agree that the ends of justice served by granting such an exclusion of time outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING CONTINUANCE

The Court has reviewed the Stipulation of the parties to continue the January 26, 2018 status conference to February 9, 2018. Based on the stipulation of the parties, the Court finds good cause to continue the status conference to February 9, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. The Court further finds that exclusion of this period 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 of counsel, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

IT IS SO ORDERED.