Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. TAFOYA, 14-MJ-00076-EFB. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20140507830 Visitors: 7
Filed: May 06, 2014
Latest Update: May 06, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge. Defendant, Rudy Tafoya, by and through his undersigned counsel, and the United States, through its undersigned counsel, hereby agree and request that the preliminary examination currently set for Thursday, May 8, 2014 at 2:00 pm be vacated and reset for Thursday, May 22, 2014 at 2:00 pm. The parties have discussed a potential pre-indictment resolution of this matter. The parties need f
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION

ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.

Defendant, Rudy Tafoya, by and through his undersigned counsel, and the United States, through its undersigned counsel, hereby agree and request that the preliminary examination currently set for Thursday, May 8, 2014 at 2:00 pm be vacated and reset for Thursday, May 22, 2014 at 2:00 pm.

The parties have discussed a potential pre-indictment resolution of this matter. The parties need further time to discuss this matter, discuss any potential consequences, and to allow counsel for the defendant reasonable time necessary for preparation and further investigation.

The defendant understands that pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b), "any information or indictment charging an individual with the commission of an offense shall be filed within thirty days from the date on which such individual was arrested." Time may be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act if the Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting such a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). The parties jointly move to exclude time within which any indictment or information shall be filed from May 8, 2014, through and including May 22, 2014, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv), because failure to do so would "deny counsel for the defendant....... The reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence."

Good cause exists under Rule 5.1(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

ORDER

IT IS SO FOUND AND 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