Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Smith, CR 15 0489 RS. (2016)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20161115d70 Visitors: 7
Filed: Nov. 14, 2016
Latest Update: Nov. 14, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE DETENTION HEARING AND EXCLUDE TIME FROM OTHERWISE APPLICABLE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT CALCULATION RICHARD SEEBORG , District Judge . STIPULATION IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties, through undersigned counsel, that: 1. The parties appeared in magistrate Court on November 10, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. for appointment of counsel. The court appointed Ethan Balogh to represent Mr. Smith. Assistant United States Attorney Sarah Hawkins appeared for the Govern
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE DETENTION HEARING AND EXCLUDE TIME FROM OTHERWISE APPLICABLE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT CALCULATION

STIPULATION

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties, through undersigned counsel, that:

1. The parties appeared in magistrate Court on November 10, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. for appointment of counsel. The court appointed Ethan Balogh to represent Mr. Smith. Assistant United States Attorney Sarah Hawkins appeared for the Government.

2. At the parties' request, the Court set a detention hearing for November 17, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. and an Initial Appearance before Judge Seeborg on November 22, 2016.

3. Counsel for the Government is unavailable for the November 22, 2016 initial appearance. Accordingly, the parties jointly request that the initial appearance be continued to December 6, 2016 at 2:30 p.m.

4. The parties further respectfully submit and agree that the period from November 10, 2016 through and including December 6, 2016 should be excluded from the otherwise applicable Speedy Trial Act computation because the continuance is necessary for effective preparation of counsel, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

5. The parties concur that granting the exclusion would allow the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation of counsel and continuity of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The parties also agree that the ends of justice served by granting such an exclusion of time for the purposes of effective preparation of counsel outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Based upon the above-described Stipulation, THE COURT FINDS THAT the ends of justice served by granting a continuance from November 22, 2016 to December 6, 2016 outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, and that failure to grant such a continuance would unreasonably deny the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

Accordingly, THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The parties shall appear before the Court on December 6, 2016 at 2:30 p.m. for an initial appearance.

2. The period from November 22, 2016 through and including December 6, 2016 is excluded from the otherwise applicable Speedy Trial Act computation, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B)(iv).

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