Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

USA v. Rivera, CR 17-0336 WHA. (2017)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20171017932 Visitors: 31
Filed: Oct. 16, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 16, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RESETTING FIRST APPEARANCE AND EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . STIPULATION IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties, through undersigned counsel, that: 1. The government and defendants Cristian Rivera and Luis Romero (hereinafter, "the parties") are scheduled to appear before the Court on October 17, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. for a first appearance. Discovery has been provided to both defendants. 2. The third defendant,
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RESETTING FIRST APPEARANCE AND EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

STIPULATION

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties, through undersigned counsel, that:

1. The government and defendants Cristian Rivera and Luis Romero (hereinafter, "the parties") are scheduled to appear before the Court on October 17, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. for a first appearance. Discovery has been provided to both defendants.

2. The third defendant, Mario Alvarado, is currently in the custody of the San Mateo County Sheriff. Counsel for the government obtained a writ habeas corpus ad prosequendum in an attempt to secure Mr. Alvarado's appearance on October 17. The United States Marshal Service notified counsel for the government today that it will not be able to bring Mr. Alvarado to Court tomorrow, October 17, but represented that it will be able to bring him to Court on October 24, 2017.

3. The parties agree that having all defendants appear before the Court at the same time will promote judicial economy and efficient case management and therefore respectfully request that this case be reset for October 24, 2017 at 2:00 p.m.

4. The parties respectfully submit and agree that the period from October 17, 2017 through and including October 24, 2017 should be excluded from the otherwise applicable Speedy Trial Act computation because the continuance is necessary for effective preparation of counsel, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. Specifically, the time requested for exclusion will allow counsel for Mr. Rivera and Mr. Romero time to review the discovery provided by the government.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Based upon the above-described Stipulation, THE COURT FINDS THAT the ends of justice served by granting a continuance October 17, 2017 through and including October 24, 2017 outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, and that failure to grant such a continuance would unreasonably deny defense counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. See 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv).

Accordingly, THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The parties shall appear before the Court on October 24, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. for a first appearance.

2. The period from October 17, 2017 through and including October 24, 2017 is excluded from the otherwise applicable Speedy Trial Act computation, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(A) & (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