Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Markis, 2:19-MJ-00021-EFB. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20190206a18 Visitors: 24
Filed: Feb. 05, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 05, 2019
Summary: STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING PURSUANT TO RULE 5.1(d) AND EXCLUSION OF TIME KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its attorney of record, Assistant United States Attorney AMANDA BECK, and defendant CARRIE ALAINE MARKIS, both individually and by and through her counsel of record, MICHAEL PETRIK, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. The Complaint in this case was filed on January 23, 2019, and defendant first appeared
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 CARRIE ALAINE MARKIS, both individually and by and through her counsel of record, MICHAEL PETRIK, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. The Complaint in this case was filed on January 23, 2019, and defendant first appeared before a judicial officer of the Court in which the charges in this case are pending on January 25, 2019.

2. The current preliminary hearing date is February 8, 2019.

3. By this stipulation, the parties jointly move for an extension of time of the preliminary hearing date to February 28, 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 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 February 8, 2019, and February 28, 2019, 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 September 18, 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 28, 2019, at 2:00 p.m., before Magistrate Judge Newman.

2. The time between February 8, 2019, and February 28, 2019, shall be excluded from calculation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

3. Defendants shall appear at that date and time before the Magistrate Judge Newman.

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