Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Krasnuik, 18-CR-00304 RS. (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20180817d25 Visitors: 24
Filed: Aug. 16, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 16, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE AND EXCLUDE TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT FROM AUGUST 14, 2018 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 18, 2018 RICHARD SEEBORG , District Judge . On August 14, 2018, the parties appeared before the Court for a status conference. The Government has provided discovery to Defendant, but has additional discovery materials to provide. Accordingly, the parties agree that additional time is necessary for effective preparation of counsel. Additionally, the parties re
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE AND EXCLUDE TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT FROM AUGUST 14, 2018 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 18, 2018

On August 14, 2018, the parties appeared before the Court for a status conference. The Government has provided discovery to Defendant, but has additional discovery materials to provide. Accordingly, the parties agree that additional time is necessary for effective preparation of counsel. Additionally, the parties requested the Court to set a second status conference for September 18, 2018. The parties agree that the time between August 14, 2018 and September 18, 2018 should be excluded in order to provide reasonable time necessary for the effective preparation of counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The parties agree that the ends of justice served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

For the reasons stated above, the Court orders that the case be continued from August 14, 2018 and September 18, 2018 and finds that the exclusion of time from August 14, 2018 and September 18, 2018 is warranted and that the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). The failure to grant the requested continuance would deny effective preparation of counsel, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. 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