STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATE AND EXCLUDING TIME FROM JANUARY 22, 2016 TO FEBRUARY 19, 2016

JON S. TIGAR, District Judge.

The defendant, Aaron W. Strube, represented by Mark Goldrosen, and the government, represented by Scott D. Joiner, Assistant United States Attorney, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

1. The matter is currently set for change of plea/motions setting on January 22, 2016 at 9:00 AM in Oakland.

2. Counsel for the government and counsel for the defendant have a scheduling conflict because both are scheduled to appear in a separate matter for a motions hearing in an eleven-defendant RICO case that was specially set for the same time before the Hon. William H. Orrick in San Francisco (CR 13-00764 WHO).

3. The parties contacted the courtroom deputy clerk regarding alternate dates in the above-captioned matter and have conferred and agree that February 19, 2016, at 2:00 PM is the best available date given the respective schedules of counsel and ongoing discovery.

4. The parties therefore jointly request that the Court continue the January 22, 2016 proceeding until February 19, 2016, at 2:00 PM.

5. The Court previously excluded time under the Speedy Trial Act through and including January 22, 2016, for the effective preparation of counsel.

6. The parties agree that in light of the availability of counsel and ongoing discovery, it remains appropriate to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act for effective preparation and continuity of counsel through and including the date of the newly requested hearing date of February 19, 2016. The parties therefore jointly request that the Court enter the Proposed Order below continuing the hearing date and excluding time.

SO STIPULATED.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the court proceeding currently scheduled on January 22, 2016, be continued to February 19, 2016, at 2:00 p.m.

Based upon the representation of counsel and for good cause shown, the Court finds that failing to exclude the time between January 22, 2016, and February 19, 2016, would unreasonably deny the defendant continuity of counsel and would deny 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 January 22, 2016, and February 19, 2016, from computation under the Speedy Trial Act outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the time between January 22, 2016 through and including February 19, 2016, shall be excluded from computation under the Speedy Trial Act. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv).