Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. RILAND, CR 13-71051 HRL. (2013)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20131004d16 Visitors: 11
Filed: Oct. 02, 2013
Latest Update: Oct. 02, 2013
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER PAUL S. GREWAL, Magistrate Judge. With the agreement of the parties, and with the consent of the defendant, the Court enters this Order vacating the currently scheduled arraignment or preliminary hearing date of October 9, 2013, at 8:30 a.m. to October 10, 2013, at 1:30 p.m., and further serves to document the defendant's waiver of the preliminary hearing date under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5 and the exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act,
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

PAUL S. GREWAL, Magistrate Judge.

With the agreement of the parties, and with the consent of the defendant, the Court enters this Order vacating the currently scheduled arraignment or preliminary hearing date of October 9, 2013, at 8:30 a.m. to October 10, 2013, at 1:30 p.m., and further serves to document the defendant's waiver of the preliminary hearing date under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5 and the exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, from September 6, 2013, up to and including October 10, 2013. The parties agree, and the Court finds and holds, as follows:

1. The defendant is out of custody on an unsecured bond.

2. Government counsel currently assigned to this matter will be leaving the San Jose U.S. Attorney's Office shortly and the matter will be reassigned to another attorney who is currently unfamiliar with the facts of the case. Accordingly, excluding the requested time period from the thirty-day time period by which an information or indictment must be filed under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b) will provide the newly-assigned attorney for the government with the reasonable time necessary to review the discovery and determine the appropriate charges to file in this case.

3. The defendant agrees to an exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act based upon the need for counsel to consult with the defendant and review discovery in order to effectively prepare in the context of attempting to negotiate any terms relevant to the disposition of this matter prior to indictment.

3. Counsel for the defendant believes that postponing the preliminary hearing is in her client's best interest, and that it is not prejudicial for the defendant to provide the United States with additional time to indict the case.

4. 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. Given these circumstances, the Court finds that the ends of justice served by excluding the period from September 6, 2013, up to and including October 10, 2013, outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial and ensure effective preparation of counsel. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b), (h)(7)(A) and (B).

6. Accordingly, and with the consent of the defendant, the Court (1) resets a preliminary hearing date of October 10, 2013 before this Court at 1:30 p.m.; and (2) orders that the period from September 6, 2013 up to and including October 10, 2013 be excluded from the time for preliminary hearings under Rule 5 of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure as well as the Speedy Trial Act calculations under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b), (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