Filed: Dec. 13, 2016
Latest Update: Dec. 13, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION TO EXCLUDE TIME AND [PROPOSED] ORDER WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties to this action, as stated on the record at the conclusion of oral argument on December 13, 2016, that the time between December 13, 2016, and January 17, 2017, be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(1)(H), (h)(7)(A), and (h)(7)(B). Excluding time until January 17, 2017, will allow for continuity of defense counsel. See 18
Summary: STIPULATION TO EXCLUDE TIME AND [PROPOSED] ORDER WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties to this action, as stated on the record at the conclusion of oral argument on December 13, 2016, that the time between December 13, 2016, and January 17, 2017, be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(1)(H), (h)(7)(A), and (h)(7)(B). Excluding time until January 17, 2017, will allow for continuity of defense counsel. See 18 U..
More
STIPULATION TO EXCLUDE TIME AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties to this action, as stated on the record at the conclusion of oral argument on December 13, 2016, that the time between December 13, 2016, and January 17, 2017, be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(1)(H), (h)(7)(A), and (h)(7)(B). Excluding time until January 17, 2017, will allow for continuity of defense counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
[PROPOSED] ORDER
As explained on the record at the close of oral argument on defendant's Motion to Suppress on December 13, 2016, the Court finds that the exclusion of the period from December 13, 2016, to January 17, 2017, from the time limits applicable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161, is warranted; that the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in the prompt disposition of this criminal case; and that the failure to grant the requested exclusion of time would unreasonably deny the defendant continuity of counsel, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
