Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

USA v. McPike, CR 17-00389 RS. (2017)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20171128891 Visitors: 17
Filed: Nov. 27, 2017
Latest Update: Nov. 27, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING HEARING DATE AND EXCLUDING TIME FROM THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT CALCULATION RICHARD SEEBORG , District Judge . Defendant, JENNIFER RENEE McPIKE, represented by Brian Berson, Defendant EFRAIN GERARDO SANTAMARIA, represented by Gabriela Bischof, Assistant Federal Public Defender, and the Government, represented by Christopher Vieira, Special Assistant United States Attorney, appeared before the Court on November 21, 2017 for a status conference. Counsel fo
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SETTING HEARING DATE AND EXCLUDING TIME FROM THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT CALCULATION

Defendant, JENNIFER RENEE McPIKE, represented by Brian Berson, Defendant EFRAIN GERARDO SANTAMARIA, represented by Gabriela Bischof, Assistant Federal Public Defender, and the Government, represented by Christopher Vieira, Special Assistant United States Attorney, appeared before the Court on November 21, 2017 for a status conference. Counsel for both defendants represented that additional time was needed for attorney preparation and investigation.

The Court set a further status conference for January 9, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. Defendants requested that time be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act between November 21, 2017 and January 9, 2018 to conduct necessary investigation. The Government did not object to the request to exclude time.

Therefore, the parties agree, and the Court finds and holds, as follows:

1. This matter is set before this Court for a status conference on January 9, 2018.

2. The time between November 21, 2017 and January 9, 2018 is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act. Failure to grant the requested continuance would deny defense counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The ends of justice served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial and in the prompt disposition of criminal cases. See id. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

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