Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Patacsil, CR 17-0083 MMC. (2017)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20170619871 Visitors: 2
Filed: Jun. 16, 2017
Latest Update: Jun. 16, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDE TIME AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . The parties are currently set for a further status conference before this court on June 21, 2017. The parties are currently engaged in settlement discussions, and law enforcement review of the defendant's many digital devices is ongoing. In light of this posture, the parties agree and stipulate to continue the upcoming status conference to August 2, 2017. The parties furthe
More

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDE TIME AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

The parties are currently set for a further status conference before this court on June 21, 2017. The parties are currently engaged in settlement discussions, and law enforcement review of the defendant's many digital devices is ongoing. In light of this posture, the parties agree and stipulate to continue the upcoming status conference to August 2, 2017. The parties further submit this stipulation confirming their agreement that time should be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B) between June 21, 2017 and August 2, 2017. Exclusion of time until August 2, 2017, will allow the defense to conduct further analysis of the evidence and is necessary 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, the Court orders that the status conference currently set for June 21, 2017 be continued to August 2, 2017. The Court also finds that the exclusion of the period from June 21, 2017 to August 2, 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

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