Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Harvey, CR 15-0439 MMC. (2016)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20160816686 Visitors: 8
Filed: Aug. 15, 2016
Latest Update: Aug. 15, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE; ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . STIPULATION IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties, through undersigned counsel, that: 1. The case is currently set for change of plea or motion setting on August 17, 2016 at 2:15 p.m. 2. The defense has been diligently reviewing discovery. Specifically, counsel for defendant spent several hours viewing the relevant computer foren
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE; ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE

STIPULATION

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties, through undersigned counsel, that:

1. The case is currently set for change of plea or motion setting on August 17, 2016 at 2:15 p.m.

2. The defense has been diligently reviewing discovery. Specifically, counsel for defendant spent several hours viewing the relevant computer forensic evidence with FBI agent Anastasia Cioni. Based on that review, a second evidence review was conducted with all parties present to address specific issues related to two of the counts charged in the Superseding Indictment. The parties need additional time to confirm the number of images at issue. STIP. AND

3. Accordingly, the parties jointly request a continuance of the matter to September 7, 2016.

4. The parties further respectfully submit and agree that the period from August 17, 2016 through and including September 7, 2016 should be excluded from the otherwise applicable Speedy Trial Act computation because the continuance is necessary for effective preparation of counsel, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

5. The parties concur that granting the exclusion is appropriate to allow reasonable time necessary for effective preparation of counsel and continuity of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The parties also agree that the ends of justice served by granting such an exclusion of time for the purposes of effective preparation of counsel outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

[ PROPOSED ] ORDER

Based upon the above-described Stipulation, THE COURT FINDS THAT the ends of justice served by granting a continuance from August 17, 2016 through and including September 7, 2016 outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, and that failure to grant such a continuance would unreasonably deny the defendant reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

Accordingly, THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The parties shall appear before the Court on September 7, 2016 at 2:15 p.m. for further status conference.

2. The period from August 17, 2016 through and including September 7, 2016 is excluded from the otherwise applicable Speedy Trial Act computation, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (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