Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Lucero, CR 16-00107-HSG. (2016)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20161114i79 Visitors: 8
Filed: Oct. 28, 2016
Latest Update: Oct. 28, 2016
Summary: ORDER EXCLUDING TIME FROM OCTOBER 24, 2016 TO NOVEMBER 14, 2016 FROM CALCULATIONS UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT (18 U.S.C. 3161) HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, Jr. , District Judge . The defendant, James Philip Lucero, represented by Assistant Federal Defender Angela Hansen, and the government, represented by Philip J. Kearney, Assistant United States Attorney, appeared before the Court on October 24, 2016, for a hearing on defense motions to dismiss. The Court made an initial determination on the moti
More

ORDER EXCLUDING TIME FROM OCTOBER 24, 2016 TO NOVEMBER 14, 2016 FROM CALCULATIONS UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT (18 U.S.C. § 3161)

The defendant, James Philip Lucero, represented by Assistant Federal Defender Angela Hansen, and the government, represented by Philip J. Kearney, Assistant United States Attorney, appeared before the Court on October 24, 2016, for a hearing on defense motions to dismiss. The Court made an initial determination on the motions and indicated a written order would be forthcoming.

The matter was continued to November 14, 2016 at 2:00 p.m., for a joint submission by the parties regarding the necessity of a pre-trial hearing on the issue of federal jurisdiction. Counsel for both parties requested that time be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act between October 24, 2016 and November 14, 2016, to allow for further research into the propriety of a pre-trial jurisdictional determination, and to allow for the effective preparation of counsel. Both parties and the Court further agreed that the time period between October 24, 2016, and November 14, 2016, would be excluded from calculations under the Speedy Trial Act to allow for the research and preparation of potential pre-trial motions on this issue pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D).

The parties consequently jointly request that time be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act between October 24, 2016 and November 14, 2016, to allow for the effective preparation of counsel and the litigation of potential pre-trial motions, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

SO STIPULATED:

ORDER

Based upon the stipulation of counsel and for good cause shown, the Court finds that failing to exclude the time between October 24, 2016 and November 14, 2016, would deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation of counsel, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The Court further finds that the ends of justice served by excluding the time between October 24, 2016 and November 14, 2016, from computation under the Speedy Trial Act outweighs the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the time between October 24, 2016 and November 14, 2016, shall be excluded from computation under the Speedy Trial Act. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that the time between October 24, 2016 and November 14, 2016 shall be excluded from computation under the Speedy Trial Act to allow for the research and preparation of the described potential pre-trial motions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D) and 18 U.S.C. § 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