STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME

MARIA-ELENA JAMES, Magistrate Judge.

During the parties' appearance before Magistrate Judge James on March 8, 2017, the Court set April 7, 2017, as the initial appearance before U.S. District Court Judge Illston. The parties request that time be excluded between March 8, 2017 and April 7, 2017, from any time limits applicable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161, for the purpose of effective preparation of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The United States will provide discovery in this case, and the defendant's attorney requires time to review this discovery. The parties agree that the ends of justice served by granting such an exclusion of time outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

IT IS SO STIPULATED:

Attestation of Filer

In addition to myself, the other signatory to this document is Ellen Leonida. I attest that I have her permission to enter a conformed signature on her behalf and to file the document.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that exclusion from the time limits applicable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161 the period from March 8, 2017, through April 7, 2017, is warranted and that the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). The failure to grant the requested exclusion of time would deny counsel for the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

IT IS SO ORDERED.