Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. VARGAS, CR 4-12-71129 KAW. (2012)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20130104704 Visitors: 19
Filed: Dec. 12, 2012
Latest Update: Dec. 12, 2012
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE FROM DECEMBER 14, 2012, EXCLUDING TIME FROM THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT CALCULATION 18 U.S.C. 3161(H)(8)(A), AND WAIVING TIME LIMITS UNDER RULE 5.1 KANDIS A. WESTMORE, Magistrate Judge. STIPULATION With the consent of the defendant, the parties jointly request that the arraignment and preliminary hearing currently set for December 14, 2012 be re-scheduled for January 4, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. The parties stipulate to a waiver of time for the prelimin
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE FROM DECEMBER 14, 2012, EXCLUDING TIME FROM THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT CALCULATION 18 U.S.C. § 3161(H)(8)(A), AND WAIVING TIME LIMITS UNDER RULE 5.1

KANDIS A. WESTMORE, Magistrate Judge.

STIPULATION

With the consent of the defendant, the parties jointly request that the arraignment and preliminary hearing currently set for December 14, 2012 be re-scheduled for January 4, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. The parties stipulate to a waiver of time for the preliminary hearing date under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1 and the exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b) from December 14, 2012 to January 4, 2013. The parties are currently engaging in plea negotiations, and the defense is in the process of reviewing discovery and conducting its investigation. Consequently, the parties agree as follows:

1. The defendant agrees to an exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(iv) to provide reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

2. The defendant waives the time limits of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1 for preliminary hearing.

3. Counsel for the defense believes that postponing the preliminary hearing is in his client's best interest, and that it is not in his client's best interest for the United States to indict the case during the normal 14-day time limit established by Rule 5.1.

IT IS SO STIPULATED. /s/

DATED: December 12, 2012 /s/ KEN WINE Attorney for Defendant DATED: December 12, 2012 /s/ CHINHAYI COLEMAN CADET Assistant United States Attorney

[PROPOSED] ORDER

The Court finds as follows:

Based upon the foregoing stipulation and the parties' representation that they are engaging in plea negotiations, reviewing discovery, and conducting investigation, the Court finds that, taking into account the public interest in the prompt disposition of criminal cases, there is good cause for extending the time limit for a preliminary hearing under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1, and to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act. The Court further finds that the ends of justice served by excluding the period from December 14, 2012 to January 4, 2013, outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv).

Accordingly, and with the consent of the defendant, the Court continues the preliminary hearing date from December 14, 2012 to January 4, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., and orders that the period from December 14, 2012 to January 4, 2013 be excluded from the time period for preliminary hearings under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1 and from the Speedy Trial Act calculations under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv).

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