Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. MENDOZA, 4-12-71274-MAG. (2012)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20130114750 Visitors: 8
Filed: Dec. 12, 2012
Latest Update: Dec. 12, 2012
Summary: [PROPOSED] ORDER AND STIPULATION FOR CONTINUANCE FROM DECEMBER 14, 2012 TO JANUARY 11, 2013 AND 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. With the agreement of the parties, and with the consent of the defendants, the Court enters this order scheduling an arraignment or preliminary hearing date of January 11, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. before the duty magistrate judge, and documenting the
More

[PROPOSED] ORDER AND STIPULATION FOR CONTINUANCE FROM DECEMBER 14, 2012 TO JANUARY 11, 2013 AND 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.

With the agreement of the parties, and with the consent of the defendants, the Court enters this order scheduling an arraignment or preliminary hearing date of January 11, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. before the duty magistrate judge, and documenting the defendants' waiver of 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 11, 2013.

The parties agree, and the Court finds and holds, as follows:

1. The defendants are both in custody pending detention hearings before the Court.

2. The defendants agree to an exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv) to provide reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The government is producing discovery in the case and defense counsel needs time to review the discovery.

3. The defendants waive the time limits of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1 for preliminary hearing.

4. Counsel for the defense believes that postponing the preliminary hearing is in their clients' best interest, and that it is not in their clients' interest for the United States to indict the case during the normal 14-day timeline established in Rule 5.1.

5. The Court finds that, taking into the account the public interest in the prompt disposition of criminal cases, these grounds are good cause for extending the time limits for a preliminary hearing under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1. Given these circumstances, the Court finds that the ends of justice served by excluding the period from December 14, 2012 to January 11, 2013, outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A).

6. Accordingly, and with the consent of the defendants, the Court (1) sets a preliminary hearing date before the duty magistrate judge on January 11, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., and (2) orders that the period from December 14, 2012 to January 11, 2013, be excluded from the time period for preliminary hearings under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1 and from Speedy Trial Act calculations under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) & (B)(iv).

IT IS SO STIPULATED:

DATED: December 4, 2012 /s/ NED SMOCK Attorney for Defendant Marin Mendoz DATED: December 4, 2012 /s/ ERICK BABCOCK Attorney for Defendant Jesus Pacheco DATED: December 4, 2012 /s/ AARON D. WEGNER Assistant United States Attorney

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