STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CHANGING HEARING DATE AND EXCLUDING TIME

LAUREL BEELER, Magistrate Judge.

The date for a preliminary hearing or arraignment in this matter is currently set on November 30, 2012. The parties hereby stipulate to set the preliminary hearing or arraignment date on December 14, 2012, and they request that the Court extend the time limits provided by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1(c) and 18 U.S.C. § 3161. This extension of time is necessary for the parties to explore possible pre-indictment resolution and for effective preparation of counsel, as a new attorney will be taking over and representing the defendant.

Pursuant to Rule 5.1(d), the defendant and the government consent to the extension of time, and the parties represent that good cause exists for this extension, including the effective preparation of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). For the same reasons, the parties also request that the Court exclude from the time limits of 18 U.S.C. § 3161 the period from the date of this Order through December 14, 2012. The parties also agree that the ends of justice served by granting such an exclusion of time outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

SO STIPULATED:

[PROPOSED] ORDER

For the reasons stated above, the Court sets December 14, 2012, as the date for the arraignment or preliminary hearing. The Court finds that extension of time limits applicable under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1(c) from the date of this Order through December 14, 2012, is warranted; that exclusion of this period from the time limits applicable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161is warranted; that the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in the prompt disposition of this criminal case; and that the failure to grant the requested exclusion of time would deny counsel for the defendant and for the government the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation of counsel, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

In addition to myself, the other signatory to this document is Randy Sue Pollock. I certify that I have her permission to enter a conformed signature on her behalf and to file.