Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Acosta, CR 13-0613 JST. (2014)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20140909572 Visitors: 20
Filed: Sep. 07, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 07, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE AND FOR EXCLUSION OF TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT (18 U.S.C. 3161) JON S. TIGAR, District Judge. This matter is currently set for a status conference on September 12, 2014. The parties have agreed to continue the matter to October 21, 2014 for a change of plea. The parties have contacted the Courtroom Deputy and are informed the first available date in Oakland is on October 21, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. The parties agree that time sh
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE AND FOR EXCLUSION OF TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT (18 U.S.C. § 3161)

JON S. TIGAR, District Judge.

This matter is currently set for a status conference on September 12, 2014. The parties have agreed to continue the matter to October 21, 2014 for a change of plea. The parties have contacted the Courtroom Deputy and are informed the first available date in Oakland is on October 21, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. The parties agree that time should appropriately be excluded for effective preparation of counsel from September 12, 2014 to October 21, 2014 in order to provide defense counsel with adequate time to review discovery, conduct additional investigation, and consult with the defendant.

The defendant agrees to exclude for these periods of time any time limits applicable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161. The parties represent that granting the continuance, is necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The parties also agree that the ends of justice served by granting such a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

SO STIPULATED:

Based upon the representations of counsel and for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-captioned matter be continued to October 21, 2014 at 10:00 a.m.

In addition, based upon the representation of counsel and for good cause shown, the Court finds that failing to exclude the time between September 12, 2014 and October 21, 2014 would unreasonably deny the defendant and counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The Court further finds that the ends of justice served by excluding the time between September 12, 2014 and October 21, 2014 from computation under the Speedy Trial Act outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. The Court further finds that time is appropriately excluded between September 12, 2014 and October 21, 2014 as delay resulting from any pretrial motion. 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(1)(D).

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the time between September 12, 2014 and October 21, 2014 shall be excluded from computation under the Speedy Trial Act. 18 U.S.C §§ 3161(h)((1)(D), 3161(h)(7)(A), and 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

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