Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Rivera, CR 17-393 EMC-1 (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20180312847 Visitors: 13
Filed: Mar. 09, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 09, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION TO EXCLUDE TIME AND [ PROPOSED ] ORDER EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . STIPULATION IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties to this action, as stated on the record at the status conference on February 28, 2018, that the time between February 28, 2018, and March 14, 2018, be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(A) and (h)(7)(B). Particularly in light of defendant's health issues, discussed on the record, excluding this period of t
More

STIPULATION TO EXCLUDE TIME AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

STIPULATION

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties to this action, as stated on the record at the status conference on February 28, 2018, that the time between February 28, 2018, and March 14, 2018, be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (h)(7)(B). Particularly in light of defendant's health issues, discussed on the record, excluding this period of time will allow defense 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

As explained on the record during the February 28, 2018, status conference, the Court finds that the exclusion of the period from February 28, 2018, through March 14, 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 defendant continuity of counsel and deny defense 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