Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. PENA, 2:13-mj-00224 KJN. (2013)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20130823809 Visitors: 5
Filed: Aug. 06, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 06, 2013
Summary: STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO CONTINUE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND FOR EXCLUSION OF TIME [Fed.R.Crim.P. 5.1(d); 18 U.S.C. 3161] ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Assistant United States Attorney Todd Pickles, counsel for the plaintiff United States of America, and defendant Efrain Padilla Pena, by and through his counsel Michael Bigelow, Esq., that good cause exists to extend the preliminary hearing currently set for August 8, 2013, at 2:00 p.m. to Aug
More

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO CONTINUE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND FOR EXCLUSION OF TIME

[Fed.R.Crim.P. 5.1(d); 18 U.S.C. § 3161]

ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Assistant United States Attorney Todd Pickles, counsel for the plaintiff United States of America, and defendant Efrain Padilla Pena, by and through his counsel Michael Bigelow, Esq., that good cause exists to extend the preliminary hearing currently set for August 8, 2013, at 2:00 p.m. to August 22, 2013, at 2:00 p.m. pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1(d).

Good cause exists to extend the time for the preliminary hearing within meaning of Rule 5.1(d) because pre-indictment discovery has been provided to the defense and counsel for defendant will need time to review the materials and advise his client with respect to his options with respect to pre-indictment resolution or preparing the matter for trial post-indictment. As a result, the defendant agrees that a continuance of the preliminary hearing date will not prejudice him as it will allow his counsel the opportunity to understand the nature and scope of the evidence in this case in order to prepare an effective defense, as well as to discuss pre-indictment resolution. Defendant is in custody.

Counsel further stipulate that an exclusion of time from August 8, 2013, to August 22, 2013, is appropriate under the Speedy Trial Act because the United States has provided pre-indictment discovery and defense counsel will need time to review that discovery. As a result, counsel for both parties stipulate that the ends of justice are served by the Court excluding such time and outweigh defendant's interest in a speedy trial, as well as the public's interest in a speedy trial, so that counsel for defendant may have reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). Therefore, time should be excluded from computation under the Speedy Trial under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) (Local Code T4).

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Based upon the representations by counsel and the stipulation of the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court finds good cause to continue the Preliminary Hearing currently set for August 8, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. to August 22, 2013, at 2:00 p.m., pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1(d); and

2. Based upon the above representations and stipulation of the parties, the Court further finds that the ends of justice outweigh the best interest of the public and defendant in a speedy trial. Accordingly, time under the Speedy Trial Act shall be excluded through August 22, 2013, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) (Local Code T4).

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