Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Kao Xiong, 2:17-MJ-00216 DB. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20181121a70 Visitors: 18
Filed: Nov. 16, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 16, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER (PROPOSED) EXTENDING TIME FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING AND EXCLUDING TIME CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its attorney of record, Assistant United States Attorney Shelley Weger, and defendant Kao Xiong, both individually and by and through his counsel of record, Tim Zindel, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. The Complaint in this case was filed on December 21, 2017. Mr. Xiong first appeared on the complaint on Decembe
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER (PROPOSED) EXTENDING TIME FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING AND EXCLUDING TIME

Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its attorney of record, Assistant United States Attorney Shelley Weger, and defendant Kao Xiong, both individually and by and through his counsel of record, Tim Zindel, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. The Complaint in this case was filed on December 21, 2017. Mr. Xiong first appeared on the complaint on December 22, 2017. The preliminary hearing is currently set for December 5, 2018.

2. By this stipulation, the parties jointly move for an extension of time of the preliminary hearing date from December 5, 2018, to February 7, 2019, 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 defense counsel additional time to consult with his client, who is currently residing in the state of Minnesota, regarding a pre-indictment resolution. Defense counsel recently met with his client and believes a pre-indictment resolution is likely, however, the parties require additional time to confer and finalize any potential pre-indictment resolution. 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).

THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK

3. The parties agree that these tasks constitute good cause to extend the time limits set forth in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1, taking into consideration the public interest in the prompt disposition of criminal cases, which the parties believe will be promoted by extending the time. The parties further request that the time between December 5, 2018, and February 7, 2019, be excluded pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv) (Local Code T4).

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

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 November 15, 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 February 7, 2019, at 2:00 p.m.

2. The time between December 5, 2018, and February 7, 2019, 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