U.S. v. ADAMS, CR 17-294 RS. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20170629c09
Visitors: 19
Filed: Jun. 28, 2017
Latest Update: Jun. 28, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME RICHARD SEEBORG , District Judge . On June 27, 2017, defendant and his attorneys appeared before this Court. At the hearing, the Court directed the parties to appear on August 29, 2017 for a further status conference. The parties agree that the additional time is necessary for the effective preparation of counsel. Therefore, the parties agree and jointly request that the time between June 27, 2017 and August 29, 2017, should be excluded in o
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME RICHARD SEEBORG , District Judge . On June 27, 2017, defendant and his attorneys appeared before this Court. At the hearing, the Court directed the parties to appear on August 29, 2017 for a further status conference. The parties agree that the additional time is necessary for the effective preparation of counsel. Therefore, the parties agree and jointly request that the time between June 27, 2017 and August 29, 2017, should be excluded in or..
More
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME
RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge.
On June 27, 2017, defendant and his attorneys appeared before this Court. At the hearing, the Court directed the parties to appear on August 29, 2017 for a further status conference. The parties agree that the additional time is necessary for the effective preparation of counsel. Therefore, the parties agree and jointly request that the time between June 27, 2017 and August 29, 2017, should be excluded in order to provide reasonable time necessary for the effective preparation of counsel pursuant to 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.
[PROPSED] ORDER
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the exclusion of time from June 27, 2017, through and including August 29, 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
