Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

USA v. Howard, CR 17-449 RMI-1. (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20180122577 Visitors: 25
Filed: Jan. 19, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 19, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDE TIME AND [PROPOSED] ORDER ROBERT M. ILLMAN , Magistrate Judge . STIPULATION The above-captioned matter is currently set for a status conference on January 22, 2018, at 1:00 pm. The parties now stipulate and respectfully request that the status conference be continued until March 12, 2018. The parties are engaged in productive discussions regarding the resolution of the case and anticipate that the defendant will be ready to enter a cha
More

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDE TIME AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

STIPULATION

The above-captioned matter is currently set for a status conference on January 22, 2018, at 1:00 pm. The parties now stipulate and respectfully request that the status conference be continued until March 12, 2018. The parties are engaged in productive discussions regarding the resolution of the case and anticipate that the defendant will be ready to enter a change of plea on that date.

The parties further stipulate that the time between January 22, 2018, and March 12, 2018, be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (h)(7)(B). Excluding such time will allow counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Based on the parties' stipulation, the Court hereby ORDERS that the status conference currently set for January 22, 2018, at 1:00 pm, be continued to March 12, 2018, at 1:00 pm.

The Court finds that the exclusion of the period from January 22, 2018, to March 12, 2018, 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 unreasonably deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (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