Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Zavaleta, 2:19-MJ-0092 EFB. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20190619933 Visitors: 5
Filed: Jun. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 18, 2019
Summary: STIPULATION AND [ PROPOSED ] ORDER CONTINUING PRELIMINARY HEARING AND EXCLUDING TIME ALLISON CLAIRE , Magistrate Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Assistant United States Attorney Jason Hitt, counsel for the plaintiff United States of America, and defendant Arturo Zavaleta, by and through his counsel Clemente Jimenez, Esq., that good cause exists to extend the preliminary hearing currently set for June 18, 2019, at 2:00 p.m. to June 25, 2019, pursuant to Rule 5.1(d) of the Fede
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING PRELIMINARY HEARING AND EXCLUDING TIME

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Assistant United States Attorney Jason Hitt, counsel for the plaintiff United States of America, and defendant Arturo Zavaleta, by and through his counsel Clemente Jimenez, Esq., that good cause exists to extend the preliminary hearing currently set for June 18, 2019, at 2:00 p.m. to June 25, 2019, pursuant to Rule 5.1(d) of the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure.

Good cause exists to extend the time for the preliminary hearing within meaning of Rule 5.1(d) because the defense counsel will be provided with an initial production of discovery and can use the time to review that material. In addition, the extra time will permit the lawyer for the United States to be present at the hearing and avoid a conflict with the June 18, 2019 date. For these reasons, the defendant agrees that a continuance of the preliminary hearing date will not prejudice him.

The parties further stipulate that the ends of justice are served by the Court excluding time from June 18, 2019, to June 25, 2019, so that counsel for the defendant may have reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). Specifically, the defense agrees that it needs time to review discovery and effectively evaluate the posture of the case, and conduct investigation into any possible defenses he may have to the charges. Id. For these reasons, the defendant, defense counsel, and the government stipulate and agree that the ends of justice outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A); Local Code T4.

DATED: June 17, 2019 /s/ Jason Hitt JASON HITT Assistant U.S. Attorney DATED: June 17, 2019. /s/ Jason Hitt for Mr. Jimenez CLEMENTE JIMENEZ, ESQ. Counsel for defendant Arturo Zavaleta Authorized to sign for Mr. Jimenez on June 11, 2019

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 extend the Preliminary Hearing in United States v. Zavaleta, Case No. 2:19-MJ-0092 EFB from June 18, 2019, to June 25, 2019, at 2:00 p.m. pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1(d); and

2. Based upon the representations and stipulation of the parties, the court finds that the time exclusion under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and Local Code T4 applies and the ends of justice outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial based upon the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). Accordingly, time under the Speedy Trial Act shall be excluded up to and including June 25, 2019.

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