U.S. v. COLON, CR 17-47 WHA. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20170303a50
Visitors: 19
Filed: Mar. 02, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION TO EXCLUDE TIME AND [PROPOSED] ORDER WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . On February 28, 2017, the parties appeared before this Court for a status conference. The court set a further status conference at 2:00pm on March 21, 2017. As discussed on the record, the Government has produced discovery to the defense and the parties agree that an exclusion of time is appropriate for the effective preparation of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). IT IS SO STIPULATED. [PROPOSE
Summary: STIPULATION TO EXCLUDE TIME AND [PROPOSED] ORDER WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . On February 28, 2017, the parties appeared before this Court for a status conference. The court set a further status conference at 2:00pm on March 21, 2017. As discussed on the record, the Government has produced discovery to the defense and the parties agree that an exclusion of time is appropriate for the effective preparation of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). IT IS SO STIPULATED. [PROPOSED..
More
STIPULATION TO EXCLUDE TIME AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.
On February 28, 2017, the parties appeared before this Court for a status conference. The court set a further status conference at 2:00pm on March 21, 2017. As discussed on the record, the Government has produced discovery to the defense and the parties agree that an exclusion of time is appropriate for the effective preparation of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, and for the reasons stated on the record, the Court finds that the exclusion of the period from February 28, 2017 to March 21, 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 deny counsel for the defendant and for the government the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation and 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.
Source: Leagle
