STIPULATION AND ORDER EXCLUDING TIME

WILLIAM H. ALSUP, District Judge.

On March 24, 2015, at 2:00 p.m., defendants Jeffery CHU, Chao Wen WU, Aaron HUANG and Wan Quan OU appeared before the Court through counsel. At that hearing, the Court set the case for trial beginning July 6, 2015. The Court also directed the defendants to file any substantive pre-trial motions (not including motions in limine) by April 21, 2015. The parties agreed that the defendants require time to evaluate any motions that they might bring, and to prepare effectively for trial. Therefore, defendants CHU, WU and HUANG agreed that time should be excluded between March 24, 2015 and July 6, 2015 in order to ensure the effective preparation of counsel. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). Defendant OU agreed that, as to him, time should be excluded between March 24, 2015 and April 21, 2015 in order to ensure the effective preparation of counsel. 18 U.S.C.

The parties agree that the ends of justice served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

SO STIPULATED.

For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that, as to defendants CHU, WU and HUANG the exclusion of time from March 24, 2015 through and including July 6, 2015 is warranted and that the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). The Court further finds that, as to defendant OU, the exclusion of time from March 24, 2015 through and including April 21, 2015 is warranted and that the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). The failure to grant the requested continuance would deny the defendant effective preparation of counsel, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

SO ORDERED.