Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. DOYLE, CR 14-0092 JST. (2014)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20140521752 Visitors: 10
Filed: Mar. 19, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 19, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING STATUS DATE; EXCLUSION OF TIME JON S. TIGAR, District Judge. STIPULATION IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties to this action, that the status date for defendant Robert Doyle, currently scheduled for March 21, 2014, at 9:300 a.m., may be continued to April 11, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. for status. The government has provided in excess of 9,000 pages of discovery and defense counsel needs time for effective preparation to review the discover
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING STATUS DATE; EXCLUSION OF TIME

JON S. TIGAR, District Judge.

STIPULATION

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties to this action, that the status date for defendant Robert Doyle, currently scheduled for March 21, 2014, at 9:300 a.m., may be continued to April 11, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. for status. The government has provided in excess of 9,000 pages of discovery and defense counsel needs time for effective preparation to review the discovery, discuss it with Mr. Doyle and begin its own investigation in preparation for the next court date.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED THAT the time to April 11, 2014, should be excluded in accordance with the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(1)(A) and (h)(7)(B)(iv) for effective preparation taking into consideration due diligence to enable counsel to review discovery, meet with Mr. Doyle and begin its investigation in preparation for the next court appearance.

DATED: 3/18/14 /s/ JOYCE LEAVITT Assistant Federal Public Defender DATED: 3/18/14 /s/ THOMAS MOORE Assistant United States Attorney

ORDER

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the court date for Robert Doyle, scheduled for March 21, 2014, is continued to April 11, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. for status.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the time from March 21, 2014, to April 11, 2014, should be excluded in accordance with the provisions of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(1)(A) and (h)(7)(B)(iv) for effective preparation of counsel taking into consideration due diligence to enable counsel to review the discovery provided, meet with Mr. Lopez and begin investigation prior to the next date. The Court finds there is good cause and the ends of justice served by the granting of the continuance outweigh the interests of the public and defendant in a speedy and public trial. Failure to grant the requested continuance would unreasonably deny counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account due diligence.

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