Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Boyd, 2:18-MJ-069 DB. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20180502g68 Visitors: 16
Filed: May 01, 2018
Latest Update: May 01, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING PURSUANT TO RULE 5.1(d) AND EXCLUSION OF TIME CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its attorney of record, Assistant United States Attorney AMANDA BECK, and defendant CODY BOYD, both individually and by and through his counsel of record, ALEXANDRA NEGIN, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. The Complaint in this case was filed on March 23, 2018, and defendant first appeared before a j
More

STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING PURSUANT TO RULE 5.1(d) AND EXCLUSION OF TIME

Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its attorney of record, Assistant United States Attorney AMANDA BECK, and defendant CODY BOYD, both individually and by and through his counsel of record, ALEXANDRA NEGIN, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. The Complaint in this case was filed on March 23, 2018, and defendant first appeared before a judicial officer of the Court in which the charges in this case were pending on March 27, 2018.

2. The current preliminary hearing date is May 8, 2018.

3. By this stipulation, the parties jointly move for an extension of time of the preliminary hearing date to May 10, 2018, at 2:00 p.m., before the duty Magistrate Judge, pursuant to Rule 5.1(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The parties stipulate that the delay is required to allow the defense reasonable time for preparation, and for the government's continuing investigation of the case. The parties further agree that the interests of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

4. The parties agree that good cause exists for the extension of time, and that the extension of time would not adversely affect the public interest in the prompt disposition of criminal cases. Therefore, the parties request that the time between May 8, 2018, and May 10, 2018, be excluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv), Local Code T-4.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

FINDINGS AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING PURSUANT TO RULE 5.1(d) AND EXCLUDING TIME

The Court has read and considered the Stipulation for Extension of Time for Preliminary Hearing Pursuant to Rule 5.1(d) and Exclusion of Time, filed by the parties in this matter on April 30, 2018. The Court hereby finds that the Stipulation, which this Court incorporates by reference into this Order, demonstrates good cause for an extension of time for the preliminary hearing date pursuant to Rule 5.1(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Furthermore, for the reasons set forth in the parties' stipulation, the Court finds that the interests of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). The Court further finds that the extension of time would not adversely affect the public interest in the prompt disposition of criminal cases.

THEREFORE, FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN:

1. The date of the preliminary hearing is extended to May 10, 2018, at 2:00 p.m.

2. The time between May 8, 2018, and May 10, 2018, shall be excluded from calculation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

3. Defendant shall appear at that date and time before the Magistrate Judge on duty.

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