USA v. Drago, CR 17-498 WHA. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20171205831
Visitors: 16
Filed: Dec. 04, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 04, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT FROM NOVEMBER 28, 2017 TO DECEMBER 19, 2017 WILLIAM H. ALSUP , District Judge . On November 28, 2017, defendant and his attorney appeared before this Court for a status appearance. The case was continued to December 19, 2017 for a change of plea or trial setting date. The Parties agree that the time between November 28, 2017 and December 19, 2017 should be excluded to provide counsel with reasonable time necessary fo
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT FROM NOVEMBER 28, 2017 TO DECEMBER 19, 2017 WILLIAM H. ALSUP , District Judge . On November 28, 2017, defendant and his attorney appeared before this Court for a status appearance. The case was continued to December 19, 2017 for a change of plea or trial setting date. The Parties agree that the time between November 28, 2017 and December 19, 2017 should be excluded to provide counsel with reasonable time necessary for..
More
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT FROM NOVEMBER 28, 2017 TO DECEMBER 19, 2017
WILLIAM H. ALSUP, District Judge.
On November 28, 2017, defendant and his attorney appeared before this Court for a status appearance. The case was continued to December 19, 2017 for a change of plea or trial setting date. The Parties agree that the time between November 28, 2017 and December 19, 2017 should be excluded to provide counsel with reasonable time necessary for the effective preparation of counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). Counsel for the defendant intends to review discovery of the images in the presence of the case agent as well as conduct additional investigative work with the assistance of experts. 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.
[PROPOSED] ORDER
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the exclusion of time from November 28, 2017 through and including December 19, 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
