Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. HATCH, CR 17-0301 JST. (2017)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20171108969 Visitors: 7
Filed: Nov. 07, 2017
Latest Update: Nov. 07, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING MATTER AND EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . STIPULATION The parties appeared before the Honorable Jon S. Tigar on November 3, 2017, for a status conference. Defendant Hatch and the government believe they are close to reaching a negotiated resolution, and the Court set Hatch's change of plea for December 15, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. Counsel for defendant Dovala is still reviewing the discovery produced by the g
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING MATTER AND EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

STIPULATION

The parties appeared before the Honorable Jon S. Tigar on November 3, 2017, for a status conference. Defendant Hatch and the government believe they are close to reaching a negotiated resolution, and the Court set Hatch's change of plea for December 15, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. Counsel for defendant Dovala is still reviewing the discovery produced by the government, and needs additional time to assess the case. At Dovala's request, the Court set a further status conference as to Dovala for December 15, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. All parties stipulated, and the Court ordered, that time between November 3, 2017 and December 15, 2017, be excluded for effective preparation of counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

The parties further stipulate, and ask the Court to find, that the requested continuance and exclusion of time are in the interests of justice and outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

SO STIPULATED.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

For the reasons stated, this matter is continued until December 15, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. The time between November 3, 2017 and December 15, 2017, is excluded from the running of the speedy trial clock for effective preparation of counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). Failure to grant the continuance would deny the defendants' counsel the reasonable time necessary to prepare, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Attestation of Filer

In addition to myself, the other signatories to this document are Harris B. Taback and Adam Pennella. I attest that I have their permission to enter conformed signatures on their behalf and to file the document.

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