U.S. v. GERARDEN, CR 17-151 RS. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20170427c29
Visitors: 7
Filed: Apr. 26, 2017
Latest Update: Apr. 26, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT FROM APRIL 25, 2017 TO JUNE 6, 2017. RICHARD SEEBORG , District Judge . On April 25, 2017, the defendant had his first appearance appeared before the District Court on this matter. At the hearing, the Court directed the parties to appear on June 6, 2017, for a status conference. The parties agree that the additional time is necessary for effective preparation of counsel. Therefore, the parties agree and jointly
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT FROM APRIL 25, 2017 TO JUNE 6, 2017. RICHARD SEEBORG , District Judge . On April 25, 2017, the defendant had his first appearance appeared before the District Court on this matter. At the hearing, the Court directed the parties to appear on June 6, 2017, for a status conference. The parties agree that the additional time is necessary for effective preparation of counsel. Therefore, the parties agree and jointly ..
More
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT FROM APRIL 25, 2017 TO JUNE 6, 2017.
RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge.
On April 25, 2017, the defendant had his first appearance appeared before the District Court on this matter. At the hearing, the Court directed the parties to appear on June 6, 2017, for a status conference. The parties agree that the additional time is necessary for effective preparation of counsel. Therefore, the parties agree and jointly request that the time between April 25, 2017, and June 6, 2017, be excluded to provide reasonable time necessary for the effective preparation of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The parties agree that the ends of justice served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. See id.
[PROPOSED] ORDER
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the exclusion of time from April 25, 2017, through and including June 6, 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 continuance would deny effective preparation of counsel and would result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161 (h)(7)(B)(iv).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
