Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Ramirez, CR 15-0063 MMC. (2016)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20160217772 Visitors: 5
Filed: Feb. 16, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 16, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE AND EXCLUSION OF TIME UNDER 18 U.S.C. 3161 ET. SEQ MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . The United States of America, by and through its attorney of record, and defendant Yosiho Ramirez ("defendant"), by and through his attorney of record, jointly request that the scheduled date of February 17, 2016 at 2:30 p.m. for change of plea or trial setting be vacated and that this matter be continued to March 23, 2016 at 2:15 p.m. for the followin
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE AND EXCLUSION OF TIME UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3161 ET. SEQ

The United States of America, by and through its attorney of record, and defendant Yosiho Ramirez ("defendant"), by and through his attorney of record, jointly request that the scheduled date of February 17, 2016 at 2:30 p.m. for change of plea or trial setting be vacated and that this matter be continued to March 23, 2016 at 2:15 p.m. for the following reasons:

1. The defense lawyer needs additional time to investigate this case involving allegations of VICAR attempted murder, conspiracy to murder, and use of a firearm to further a crime of violence, all of which involve substantial penalties. The defense counsel also needs additional time to conduct investigation before she can fully advise her client as to the proper course for this case, including the impact of defendant's prosecution in Sonoma County involving the same conduct. In addition, the defense lawyer is currently unavailable because she has been appointed to a new death penalty case, the ramifications of which are obviously significant.

2. For the reasons stated above, the parties stipulate and agree that this matter should be continued to March 23, 2016 at 2:15 p.m., and that the failure to grant such a continuance would unreasonably deny the defendant continuity of counsel and the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The parties further stipulate and agree that the time from February 17, 2016 to March 23, 2016 should be excluded on the basis that the ends of justice are served by taking such action which outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial and for continuity of counsel and effective preparation of counsel, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv).

ORDER

Upon the parties' stipulation, and GOOD CAUSE appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the court date of February 17, 2016 at 2:30 p.m. shall be vacated and that this matter shall be continued to March 23, 2016 at 2:15 p.m. for change of plea or trial setting. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time from February 17, 2016 through March 23, 2016 shall be excluded in accordance with the provisions of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv). The Court finds that (A) failure to grant the continuance would unreasonably deny the defendant continuity of counsel and the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence; and (B) the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

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